That russian oligarch that allegedly gave money to trumps lawyer gave money to the Clintons

a reply to: network dude

No crimes yet, but has shown terrible judgement...the house Intel report on the Russia investigation read almost word for word like the FBI report on Clintons server.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Aside from the fact that Trump is currently President of the United States and it's objectively more important what he and his team are up to now than former SoS Clinton and hers were years ago, I'd also like to point out that in all this talk about double standards, there's an *obvious* double standard applied by Trump supporters.

The irony is that your defense of Team Trump is to show that they're just like Team Clinton. And we all know how the "lock her up!" crowd feels about the Clintons.

Why don't you hold Trump to the same standard as the Clintons?

You may be right about double standards here on ATS, which in the grand scheme of things isn’t really a big deal. My neighbor doesn’t give one crap about ATS. The double standards in the investigation process from the FBI in regards to Clinton’s vs Trump effects the entire country. Very big difference!

Didn't her husband get impeached by the House over a bj? From a special council?

nope, he was impeached for lying under oath about the BJ. Would you like a link to the entire affair so you don't make that kind of mistake again?

Sure. They appointed a man to investigate real estate and they caught him in a purgerry trap about something unrelated.

Sound familiar?

a reply to: Grambler

If only the GOP had hack laywers/political hatchet men to disperse their stories to a fawning media back then, they might have generated enough interest among the Twitterati.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Aside from the fact that Trump is currently President of the United States and it's objectively more important what he and his team are up to now than former SoS Clinton and hers were years ago, I'd also like to point out that in all this talk about double standards, there's an *obvious* double standard applied by Trump supporters.

The irony is that your defense of Team Trump is to show that they're just like Team Clinton. And we all know how the "lock her up!" crowd feels about the Clintons.

Why don't you hold Trump to the same standard as the Clintons?

You may be right about double standards here on ATS, which in the grand scheme of things isn’t really a big deal. My neighbor doesn’t give one crap about ATS. The double standards in the investigation process from the FBI in regards to Clinton’s vs Trump effects the entire country. Very big difference!

Didn't her husband get impeached by the House over a bj? From a special council?

nope, he was impeached for lying under oath about the BJ. Would you like a link to the entire affair so you don't make that kind of mistake again?

Sure. They appointed a man to investigate real estate and they caught him in a purgerry trap about something unrelated.

Sound familiar?

www.youtube.com...

You sound like you need to do a bit of research on this before you embarrass yourself more.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: luthier

No actually, his impeachment was a result of lying under oath and for obstruction of justice about the BJ in the Oval office and also why he was disbarred from the practice of law. True that it was result of an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL not a Special counsel.

The very reason we have Special Counsels today, they are more limited in the scope of investigations lest they go awry and so far afield, keeping in mind that that independent investigation was formed to investigate the White Water affair, a specific investigation of alleged criminal acts, it went so far in scope because of the power given to an INDEPENDENT counsel

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Aside from the fact that Trump is currently President of the United States and it's objectively more important what he and his team are up to now than former SoS Clinton and hers were years ago, I'd also like to point out that in all this talk about double standards, there's an *obvious* double standard applied by Trump supporters.

The irony is that your defense of Team Trump is to show that they're just like Team Clinton. And we all know how the "lock her up!" crowd feels about the Clintons.

Why don't you hold Trump to the same standard as the Clintons?

You may be right about double standards here on ATS, which in the grand scheme of things isn’t really a big deal. My neighbor doesn’t give one crap about ATS. The double standards in the investigation process from the FBI in regards to Clinton’s vs Trump effects the entire country. Very big difference!

Didn't her husband get impeached by the House over a bj? From a special council?

nope, he was impeached for lying under oath about the BJ. Would you like a link to the entire affair so you don't make that kind of mistake again?

Sure. They appointed a man to investigate real estate and they caught him in a purgerry trap about something unrelated.

Sound familiar?

www.youtube.com...

You sound like you need to do a bit of research on this before you embarrass yourself more.

en.wikipedia.org...

Really?

Leading to the impeachment, Independent Counsel Ken Starr turned over documentation to the House Judiciary Committee. Chief Prosecutor David Schippers and his team reviewed the material and determined there was sufficient evidence to impeach the president.

From your source.

So what was Ken Star hired to do?

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: luthier

No actually, his impeachment was a result of lying under oath and for obstruction of justice about the BJ in the Oval office and also why he was disbarred from the practice of law. True that it was result of an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL not a Special counsel.

The very reason we have Special Counsels today, they are more limited in the scope of investigations lest they go awry and so far afield, keeping in mind that that independent investigation was formed to investigate the White Water affair, a specific investigation of alleged criminal acts, it went so far in scope because of the power given to an INDEPENDENT counsel

Lol. Read the scooter libby mandate.

You guys are hilarious.

At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses;

Running the State Department as a pay for play scheme is reprehensible. Unfortunately, politicians don't really want to look into other politicians taking money for political access, for obvious reasons.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Crazy how anytime the Clinton's are connected to something shady the thread skyrockets with flags but with Trump being connected with the same exact people the thread peters out almost immediately.

The one thread showing Trump's lawyer took money from these people is struggling to get 10 stars/flags and has been up since last night, this thread showing the same exact connection except to the Clinton's has been up maybe an hour and will be front page pretty soon. It really shows you the demographic around here these days.

Whataboutisms being enough to make it to the front page yet at the same time they are being vilified by the very same people unless they go in Trump's favor.

I might encourage you to strive for more in life than stars and flags? I mean, really, does your existence depend on whether your posts get flags? Or stars? Are they like participation trophies to prove you tried? I really don’t get it.

Back on topic, as usual you missed the point completely, your whataboutism whining not withstanding. Point of post being why was none of this considered criminal or shady until POTUS 45 was elected. Especially since the previous administration was knee deep in it? Well, actually neck deep, but apparently no one, per you, is allowed to discuss that administrations transgressions.

drugs are bad, mkay?

you were asserting that Clinton was impeached for getting a hummer, that was wrong. Then you tried to suggest it was a purgerry trap. Both accounts were wrong. Now you are trying to deflect away from your mistakes. Just be a man, accept them, learn from them and move on. Integrity, not just for republicans anymore.

a reply to: Lab4Us

You would hope that if the last administration was deeply rooted in misdeeds which it sure seems like..that Donald Trump cabinet picks could run investigations and prosecute.

But I guess it's Clinton's fault that Trump picked such useless people to run the departments...

originally posted by: network dude
drugs are bad, mkay?

you were asserting that Clinton was impeached for getting a hummer, that was wrong. Then you tried to suggest it was a purgerry trap. Both accounts were wrong. Now you are trying to deflect away from your mistakes. Just be a man, accept them, learn from them and move on. Integrity, not just for republicans anymore.

Ah another person who doesn't try and figure out an argument but wants to win.

It was Ken Star and the white water investigation that brought Clinton down big guy.

The Lewinsky portion of the investigation included the secret taping of conversations between Lewinsky and coworker Linda Tripp, requests by Starr to tape Lewinsky's conversations with Clinton, and requests by Starr to compel Secret Service agents to testify about what they might have seen while guarding Clinton.

Lol keep trying.

a reply to: Lab4Us



pointing out the star/flag ratio between anit-clinton and anti-trump threads is just an observation, no need to get all sanctimonious, good lord.

trump screeched "lock her up" during the campaign and then back tracked instantly. then his problems started, and he was all in again - he needed a good distraction. lol republicans own all three branches of government so ask them why investigations haven't begun.

a reply to: luthier

Well I am not sure exactly what you want me to learn, but yes Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed Special Counsel or Prosecutor by James Comey to investigate a specific crime, the leak of the name of an CIA official, a SPECIFIC CRIME to investigate. Below is a link you can read of the differences of Independent and Special Counsels.

And it is correct that specific instructions can be given to an SC but the appointment must involve a specific crime to investigate. A specific crime was named in the Libby investigation and the same for Ken Starr. And again Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and for obstruction of justice, he lied about the BJ but that was not why he was impeached, get it right.

www.businessinsider.com...

Here is a quote from the guy Nunes has read all the info he demands since he doesn't understand law.

REP. TREY GOWDY, R-S.C., HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIR: I don't, and I think that president's attorney frankly does him a disservice when he says that and when he frames the investigation that way. Chris, if you look at the jurisdiction for Robert Mueller, first and foremost, what did Russia do to this country in 2016? That is supremely important, and it has nothing to do with collusion. So, to suggest that McCabe should shut down and all that he is looking at his collusion, if you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act like it.

Russia attacked our country. Let special counsel Mueller figure that out. And if you believe as we have found, there’s no evidence to collusion, you should want special counsel Mueller to take all the time, and have all the independence he needs to do his job.

a reply to: DJMSN

Sure. I have read them.

I have also listened to gowdy who the house Intel committee uses to read the documents.

And judge napalitano who was a federal judge.

My point is stop crying. Trumpnshould never have picked Jeff sessions. Jeff sessions is 90 percent of the reason a special council was appointed. He was both a witness and a terrible AG...and then there is Rod who was also appointed by trump...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: network dude
drugs are bad, mkay?

you were asserting that Clinton was impeached for getting a hummer, that was wrong. Then you tried to suggest it was a purgerry trap. Both accounts were wrong. Now you are trying to deflect away from your mistakes. Just be a man, accept them, learn from them and move on. Integrity, not just for republicans anymore.

Ah another person who doesn't try and figure out an argument but wants to win.

It was Ken Star and the white water investigation that brought Clinton down big guy.

The Lewinsky portion of the investigation included the secret taping of conversations between Lewinsky and coworker Linda Tripp, requests by Starr to tape Lewinsky's conversations with Clinton, and requests by Starr to compel Secret Service agents to testify about what they might have seen while guarding Clinton.

Lol keep trying.

What we have here, is failure to communicate. You first were wrong about what got Bill Clinton impeached. I offered you a corrected version of facts. You then doubled down on stupid and claimed that Billy was tricked into the perjury charge. Another mistake that only someone who had little to no clue about the event would make.

Now, you seem to think that by deflecting and bring up Ken Star in some strange fashion, you are redeeming yourself.

What is it about Ken Star that you wish to discuss now that you have been shown the error of your ways regarding the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

ETA: Clinton wasn't brought down either. He was impeached, then things just went on as before. He remained president and never resigned. So I guess we can call that epic fail #3.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: network dude
drugs are bad, mkay?

you were asserting that Clinton was impeached for getting a hummer, that was wrong. Then you tried to suggest it was a purgerry trap. Both accounts were wrong. Now you are trying to deflect away from your mistakes. Just be a man, accept them, learn from them and move on. Integrity, not just for republicans anymore.

Ah another person who doesn't try and figure out an argument but wants to win.

It was Ken Star and the white water investigation that brought Clinton down big guy.

The Lewinsky portion of the investigation included the secret taping of conversations between Lewinsky and coworker Linda Tripp, requests by Starr to tape Lewinsky's conversations with Clinton, and requests by Starr to compel Secret Service agents to testify about what they might have seen while guarding Clinton.

Lol keep trying.

What we have here, is failure to communicate. You first were wrong about what got Bill Clinton impeached. I offered you a corrected version of facts. You then doubled down on stupid and claimed that Billy was tricked into the perjury charge. Another mistake that only someone who had little to no clue about the event would make.

Now, you seem to thing that by deflecting and bring up Ken Star in some strange fashion, you are redeeming yourself.

What is it about Ken Star that you wish to discuss now that you have been shown the error of your ways regarding the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

You are just looking like an idiot.

Since you have no intention of actually understanding an opponent in debate you are a useless and inferior debating partner.

I made a comment that if you were not disengenous you would have understood by now meant.

Ken Star ws appointed for crooked real estate and possible murder. Ended up nailing him for a lie about a bj...

Without Ken star they would have never known Clinton lied about the bj.

They used Ken star to spy...

Lol. But nice try

In case you missed it:

Novartis has confirmed that it paid as much as $1.2 million dollars to Cohen... for one meeting.

Nova rtis paid Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen more than $1 million for advice on president's approach to Obamacare – work he was unable to do

Novartis said it signed a one-year contract with Cohen's shell company, Essential Consultants, for $100,000 per month in February 2017, shortly after Trump was inaugurated as president. Novartis said it believed Cohen "could advise the company as to how the Trump administration might approach certain U.S. health-care policy matters, including the Affordable Care Act."

$100k a month for Cohen to do what?

But just a month after signing the deal, Novartis executives had their first meeting with Cohen, and afterward "determined that Michael Cohen and Essentials Consultants would be unable to provide the services that Novartis had anticipated."

It says "after one month" here but according to Tom Winter (NBC) on Twitter, it was one meeting they had.

But Novartis kept on paying Cohen, despite that fact. "As the contract, unfortunately, could only be terminated for cause, payments continued to be made until the contract expired by its own terms in February 2018," Novartis said. That means that Cohen was paid up to $1.2 million for his work. Novartis did not immediately disclose the total amount paid.

So they're saying that they kept paying him for "work" he couldn't do because they were under year-long contract they couldn't break for cause (really?), so that's would be $1.2 million.

Oh man, sure looks like Cohen should just change his name to Michael Clinton. He's just like one of those Clintons. I haven't seen anything this Clintonesque in some time. He's more Clinton than Bill Clinton. He's so Clinton that he probably has a closet full of pantsuits. Cohen Clinton. Clinton Cohen. Clinton Clinton Clinton. Cohen. If the Clintons had known how much money there was to be made in peddling influence over Trump, they'd probably have made nice with him so they could cash in just like Cohen. That Trump, he hires only the finest Clintons... I mean Cohens... I mean people. Sorry, they're just so similar it's easy to confuse Clinton and Cohen.

Drain the swamp! Lock him up! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

a reply to: luthier

so you weren't the one who posted this:

Didn't her husband get impeached by the House over a bj? From a special council?

then this:

Sure. They appointed a man to investigate real estate and they caught him in a purgerry trap about something unrelated. Sound familiar?

If it was you, then one of us is indeed and idiot and I'm not sure that it's me. I informed you that Clinton wasn't impeached over the hummer, it was for lying under oath about the hummer, he had a choice to just tell the truth, he opted not to. Then you said he was caught in a "purgerry trap", which is again false. He had the opportunity to speak the truth, and opted for a lie.

I do agree that Ken Star went well out of his scope to pin this on Billy and while I think Trump has better taste in who he porks, Monica did have some full lips and likely did a really nice JOB with Billy.

But at some point, you have to realize that you aren't fooling anyone, and accepting your mistake is a much better way to do business. If you choose to continue your charade of self importance, go nuts.