Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 27, 2017 Next fake outrage lie ? You just posted the only lies and fake outrage. The whole Obama was spying on Trump admin (when you get caught with guys we are spying on from Russia...it doesn't mean we were spying on you). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,892 Posted May 27, 2017 I seriously think Trump just assumed you run the WH the same way he ran his own business and everything would be fine, never once considering that this sort of thing might be an ethics violation. They won't get Trump on anything serious but hi WH has been a total clown show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cruzer 1,992 Posted May 27, 2017 I seriously think Trump just assumed you run the WH the same way he ran his own business and everything would be fine, never once considering that this sort of thing might be an ethics violation. They won't get Trump on anything serious but hi WH has been a total clown show. He's also not used to getting told no, being biatch slapped nor to made look stupid. And unlike his businesses he can't just pack up, declare bankruptcy and leave people hanging this time around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,652 Posted May 27, 2017 No you don't actually. That has been explained to you a few times already. The fact that the Russians were in a position to make an offer via previously undisclosed contacts with them by Kushner is problem enough. You have to ask yourself why it is the Kush would want to set up back-channel communications when in a few weeks you can speak to them all he wanted. But he wanted to do so off the Record prior to the election. That certainly doesn't smell good. He's a rank amateur who doesn't know what he's doing? Is that possible? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,640 Posted May 29, 2017 Oh, this is just f****** wonderful. Kushner is responsible for everything from Middle East peace to rewiring all the f****** computers in the white house and everything in between. Now, even members of the White House want him to disappear for awhile. Yeah that's great, lay low for 6 months or so. You're only responsible for 36 of the most important priorities in the country. And the only reason he is is because Trump is so paranoid that he doesn't trust anybody else you know especially qualified people to do the job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 29, 2017 Or that he knew Kushner wouldn't make it thru any actual vetting so he has to put him in this role (and then basically having him do much of Tillerson's job). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,652 Posted May 29, 2017 Or that he knew Kushner wouldn't make it thru any actual vetting so he has to put him in this role (and then basically having him do much of Tillerson's job). Like Valerie Jarrett? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted May 30, 2017 Turns out the Washington post was fake newsing it up again. Whodathunk? As I said earlier, next fake outrage lie? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 30, 2017 Turns out the Washington post was fake newsing it up again. Whodathunk? As I said earlier, next fake outrage lie? Link? Oh...you believe Fox Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cyclone24 1,814 Posted May 30, 2017 Link? Oh...you believe Fox Bahaha.....another fabricated outrage....shot down. Sho...left to pick up the pieces to try to advance a non issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 30, 2017 Bahaha.....another fabricated outrage....shot down. Sho...left to pick up the pieces to try to advance a non issue. How was it shot down again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cyclone24 1,814 Posted May 30, 2017 How was it shot down again? Umm...starting to come out it never happened. Oh wait....since MSM doesn't want to claim that (yet have no problem running with the story when it's anti kushner)...therefore NOW it's not fact. But by god....CNN runs with it...must be fact. JFC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted May 30, 2017 Umm...starting to come out it never happened. Oh wait....since MSM doesn't want to claim that (yet have no problem running with the story when it's anti kushner)...therefore NOW it's not fact. But by god....CNN runs with it...must be fact. JFC Still not seeing a link to a retraction on this. Surely Fox News must have something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 30, 2017 Umm...starting to come out it never happened. Oh wait....since MSM doesn't want to claim that (yet have no problem running with the story when it's anti kushner)...therefore NOW it's not fact. But by god....CNN runs with it...must be fact. JFC One article by Fox does not equal "starting to come out". Hell...Trump is probably their focking source. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cyclone24 1,814 Posted May 30, 2017 One article by Fox does not equal "starting to come out". Hell...Trump is probably their focking source. May have been Hannity. Better?....no?....ok Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
giraldi02 470 Posted May 30, 2017 Umm...starting to come out it never happened. Oh wait....since MSM doesn't want to claim that (yet have no problem running with the story when it's anti kushner)...therefore NOW it's not fact. But by god....CNN runs with it...must be fact. JFC Wait for it: The idea of a permanent back channel was never discussed, according to the source. It's starting to come out that it never happened because "the source" said so. Either anonymous sources are accepted unilaterally or they're not. Which, in this case, would mean a stalemate until the investigation is completed and publicly disclosed since the WaPo and Fox News both claim to have anonymous sources that aren't putting names to statements. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 30, 2017 May have been Hannity. Better?....no?....ok So, basically you've got nothing to actually refute what was initially reported (and more info is still coming out backing up the original story and going into details). And there are likely intercepts of the conversation as well. Keep that head in the sand though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted May 30, 2017 Still not seeing a link to a retraction on this. Surely Fox News must have something.sources ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted May 30, 2017 The best part is that you retards really think you're going to be shown actual evidence from an FBI investigation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted May 30, 2017 The best part is that you retards really think you're going to be shown actual evidence from an FBI investigation. You just toasted shoflake. That was your intent, right? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 30, 2017 You just toasted shoflake. That was your intent, right? You are foolish enough to believe that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iam90sbaby 2,125 Posted May 30, 2017 You just toasted shoflake. That was your intent, right? Just another day in the life of Sho. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted May 30, 2017 You just toasted shoflake. That was your intent, right? I'm toasting all the mental midgets who keep asking where the evidence is. As if Mueller is going to reveal a single piece of it to the public. All you had to do was listen to anyone who knows this guy in the days following his appointment. They all said the same thing. He is a no-nonsense guy. He will be thorough. He will be fair. He will take all the time he thinks he needs. And he won't be leaking things to the public. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iam90sbaby 2,125 Posted May 30, 2017 You are foolish enough to believe that. I made you a new avatar: https://s14.postimg.org/vn4p5sctd/photo-9885.png 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,652 Posted May 30, 2017 I made you a new avatar: https://s14.postimg.org/vn4p5sctd/photo-9885.png Ha! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,892 Posted May 30, 2017 As an aside this Kushner guy gives off a real frat house date rapist / dooshtard vibe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted May 30, 2017 As an aside this Kushner guy gives off a real frat house date rapist / dooshtard vibe. Doesn't look like a bad guy. But looks like a book nerd. Shocked that Ivanka would be attracted to a guy like him. (Other than the money part) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 30, 2017 Just another day in the life of Sho. Yes...people like you and Timmy too dumb to realize what was being discussed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iam90sbaby 2,125 Posted May 30, 2017 Yes...people like you and Timmy too dumb to realize what was being discussed. That's not a nice thing to say to someone who just made you a gift. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cruzer 1,992 Posted May 30, 2017 Shocked that Ivanka would be attracted to a guy like him. (Other than the money part) Hard to find guys taller than her, white and with gobs of millions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 824 Posted May 30, 2017 Hard to find guys taller than her, white and with gobs of millions. I could see how such qualifications from a woman would be a sore spot for you. Sorry buddy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted May 30, 2017 Saw that it was actually the Russian guy suggesting this as a one time deal in regard to,Syria. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 30, 2017 Saw that it was actually the Russian guy suggesting this as a one time deal in regard to,Syria. Trump and co whine about anonymous sources. Don't believe even when it's multiple sources saying the same thing. Trump and co believe single unnamed source when it says what they want. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted May 30, 2017 All this to cover Obama/Susan Rice and Brennan unmasking political opponents and reporters? The media along with libs here sure are getting lathered up like it's prom night. In reality, you'll wake up like most disillusioned teenage girls hung over, dripping from one or more orifices and be sorely disappointed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 30, 2017 All this to cover Obama/Susan Rice and Brennan unmasking political opponents and reporters? The media along with libs here sure are getting lathered up like it's prom night. In reality, you'll wake up like most disillusioned teenage girls hung over, dripping from one or more orifices and be sorely disappointed. You got it...they manufactured an FBI investigation and got a republican assistant AG to appoint special counsel to cover for Obama and Susan Rice. Are you trying to sound like a nutjub moron on purpose on this board...that would explain some things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,652 Posted May 30, 2017 Why would Kushner have to establish a back channel after the election if they were colluding with the Russians before it? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cyclone24 1,814 Posted May 31, 2017 Why would Kushner have to establish a back channel after the election if they were colluding with the Russians before it? And since when hasnt every administration had these back channel avenues? Christ...liberals act like this is new. Ill have more flexibility after the election. I will get this information to vladamir. Oop...back channel. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,652 Posted May 31, 2017 And since when hasnt every administration had these back channel avenues? Christ...liberals act like this is new. Ill have more flexibility after the election. I will get this information to vladamir. Oop...back channel. Exactly. As soon as this Kuchner thing runs it course with nothing to show for it they will move on to someone else in the Trump camp. Eventually they will get to his 10 year old son Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted May 31, 2017 And since when hasnt every administration had these back channel avenues? Christ...liberals act like this is new. Ill have more flexibility after the election. I will get this information to vladamir. Oop...back channel. How many have requested them at the embassy of a foreign government with rumored ties to the oncoming administration...IC reported in early January on the measure taken during the election. And trying to create the channel to circumvent surveillance by the Intel Community? Yeah...not quite close to the everyone does this excuse. Also...Obama was President when he made the flexibility comment. That's been a weak attempt by the right from the beginning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 824 Posted May 31, 2017 Why would Kushner have to establish a back channel after the election if they were colluding with the Russians before it? If you are asking why our government would be less likely to know who Donald Trump and his team were talking to every day for the last several years compared to who they are talking to since January 20th of this year....well I know I can't figure out why it would be any different now, but I'm pretty stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites