WWTBAM Bored

Buzzfeed

You mean this story about how Donny directly instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress? Sounds like eyewitness testimony that Donny is guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice to me. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:You mean this story about how Donny directly instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress? Sounds like eyewitness testimony that Donny is guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice to me. --Bob

...according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Strzok and Page? or Laurel and Hardy?

Bob78164 wrote:You mean this story about how Donny directly instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress? Sounds like eyewitness testimony that Donny is guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice to me. --Bob

...according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Strzok and Page? or Laurel and Hardy?

I will have to admit, reluctantly, that there is some definite, incontrovertible proof that the president conspired with Russian officials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p8

Bob78164 wrote:You mean this story about how Donny directly instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress?

The model of Trump Tower Moscow is fake. The sign on top should say ТРАМП not TRUMP.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You mean this story about how Donny directly instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress? Sounds like eyewitness testimony that Donny is guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice to me. --Bob

...according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Strzok and Page? or Laurel and Hardy?

Won't matter. You still won't believe it even when you hear Cohen give that testimony under oath to the House. It's one of the primary symptoms of your serious case of Trump Fanboy Syndrome. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You mean this story about how Donny directly instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress? Sounds like eyewitness testimony that Donny is guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice to me. --Bob

...according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Strzok and Page? or Laurel and Hardy?

Won't matter. You still won't believe it even when you hear Cohen give that testimony under oath to the House. It's one of the primary symptoms of your serious case of Trump Fanboy Syndrome. --Bob

No, I don't think I would believe one word Cohen utters.

I'll believe it when there's actual EVIDENCE, bob-tel. Not unnamed sources cited by the alleged news organization that decided to publish Hillary's dossier on trump as news.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I'll believe it when there's actual EVIDENCE, bob-tel. Not unnamed sources cited by the alleged news organization that decided to publish Hillary's dossier on trump as news.

It's amazing how you're so much more trusting of right wing news sources.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I'll believe it when there's actual EVIDENCE, bob-tel. Not unnamed sources cited by the alleged news organization that decided to publish Hillary's dossier on trump as news.

It's amazing how you're so much more trusting of right wing news sources.

What's amazing to me is not a single one of you addresses the Obama film clip. Just cry 'whataboutism' and move along to the next little fit of hysteria on your list. Not a word, that I've seen from any of you, expressing any concern at all about that. Fascinating, really.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You mean this story about how Donny directly instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress? Sounds like eyewitness testimony that Donny is guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice to me. --Bob

...according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Strzok and Page? or Laurel and Hardy?

I will have to admit, reluctantly, that there is some definite, incontrovertible proof that the president conspired with Russian officials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p8

A hot microphone picked up President Obama telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he would have more flexibility to negotiate on issues like missile defense after the 2012 election.


True


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama ... ty-russia/

Obama was quoted the following day saying he wasn’t trying to “hide the ball,” and would carry through with negotiations with Russia. In May 2016, after nearly a decade of planning (and over the continued objections of Russia), the NATO missile defense system in Europe was finally launched.

Fast-forwarding to December 2016, it is unclear precisely what equivalence, if any, is supposed to exist between Obama’s 2012 vow of “flexibility” and claims that Russia took Trump’s side in the presidential election, but sources such as CNSNews.com emphasized Obama’s persistent criticism of Trump’s alleged closeness to Vladimir Putin:

While campaigning for Hillary Clinton in October, Obama criticized Republican Donald Trump’s “continued flattery of Mr. Putin and the degree to which he appears to model many of his policies and approaches” after those of Putin.

Flock may be happy to know he'll soon have the "evidence" that he needs. The House has already announced it's launching an investigation into these claims.

Isn't it great when you have at least one branch of Congress that does its job?

silverscreenselect wrote:Flock may be happy to know he'll soon have the "evidence" that he needs. The House has already announced it's launching an investigation into these claims.

Isn't it great when you have at least one branch of Congress that does its job?

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I'll believe it when there's actual EVIDENCE, bob-tel. Not unnamed sources cited by the alleged news organization that decided to publish Hillary's dossier on trump as news.

It's amazing how you're so much more trusting of right wing news sources.

You seem to be constantly amused and amazed at everything. Are these the same unnamed sources that have said for over a year that trump was firing rosenstein? That trump called the violent white supremacists and the equally violent antifa radicals 'good people'. The same sources that report that trump is xxxx, as long as xxxx is negative?
People who buy all this crap are what amazes me.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I'll believe it when there's actual EVIDENCE, bob-tel. Not unnamed sources cited by the alleged news organization that decided to publish Hillary's dossier on trump as news.

It's amazing how you're so much more trusting of right wing news sources.

You seem to be constantly amused and amazed at everything. Are these the same unnamed sources that have said for over a year that trump was firing rosenstein? That trump called the violent white supremacists and the equally violent antifa radicals 'good people'. The same sources that report that trump is xxxx, as long as xxxx is negative?
People who buy all this crap are what amazes me.

You're like a football fan trying to convince yourself your team has a good chance to win when they're down two touchdowns in the last minute.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
...according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Strzok and Page? or Laurel and Hardy?

Won't matter. You still won't believe it even when you hear Cohen give that testimony under oath to the House. It's one of the primary symptoms of your serious case of Trump Fanboy Syndrome. --Bob

No, I don't think I would believe one word Cohen utters.

I'll believe it when there's actual EVIDENCE, bob-tel. Not unnamed sources cited by the alleged news organization that decided to publish Hillary's dossier on trump as news.

Buzzfeed's article isn't based on anything Cohen said.

No corroboration of stuff yet. Sorta like I heard that someone said to their neighbor that Pelosi is a stripper on weekends for Russian oligarchs during campaign season. Urp.
And the reporter...https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

edited for misspelling

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
It's amazing how you're so much more trusting of right wing news sources.

You seem to be constantly amused and amazed at everything. Are these the same unnamed sources that have said for over a year that trump was firing rosenstein? That trump called the violent white supremacists and the equally violent antifa radicals 'good people'. The same sources that report that trump is xxxx, as long as xxxx is negative?
People who buy all this crap are what amazes me.

You're like a football fan trying to convince yourself your team has a good chance to win when they're down two touchdowns in the last minute.

Beebs52 wrote:No corroboration of stuff yet. Sorta like I heard that someone said to their neighbor that Pelosi is a stripper on weekends for Russian oligarchs during campaign season. Urp.
And the reporter...https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

edited for misspelling

Uggh. Why did you have to say that? Lost my lunch.

silverscreenselect wrote:Flock may be happy to know he'll soon have the "evidence" that he needs. The House has already announced it's launching an investigation into these claims.

Isn't it great when you have at least one branch of Congress that does its job?

Oh, have they called it off now that Mueller has called bullshit? No, they already have written their conclusions, they just have to fake an investigation.

Bob78164 wrote:You mean this story about how Donny directly instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress? Sounds like eyewitness testimony that Donny is guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice to me. --Bob

bob-tel, let me introduce you to FAKE NEWS. FAKE NEWS, this is bob-tel, first of his name, ethical, above-average lawyer, the perpetually outraged.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Won't matter. You still won't believe it even when you hear Cohen give that testimony under oath to the House. It's one of the primary symptoms of your serious case of Trump Fanboy Syndrome. --Bob

No, I don't think I would believe one word Cohen utters.

I'll believe it when there's actual EVIDENCE, bob-tel. Not unnamed sources cited by the alleged news organization that decided to publish Hillary's dossier on trump as news.

Buzzfeed's article isn't based on anything Cohen said.

Interesting. It turns out that Mueller says this was not based on anything ANYONE said, except for the sketchy writers. One would have to be an absolute moron to ever pay anything to either of them again.

I'm sure that apologies are forthcoming from those here who believed this, propagated it and then slammed others who questioned it.

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:No, I don't think I would believe one word Cohen utters.

I'll believe it when there's actual EVIDENCE, bob-tel. Not unnamed sources cited by the alleged news organization that decided to publish Hillary's dossier on trump as news.

Buzzfeed's article isn't based on anything Cohen said.

Interesting. It turns out that Mueller says this was not based on anything ANYONE said, except for the sketchy writers. One would have to be an absolute moron to ever pay anything to either of them again.

I'm sure that apologies are forthcoming from those here who believed this, propagated it and then slammed others who questioned it.

If you're referring to me (since you quoted me), I'm not retracting a damn thing. What I said is that flock would refuse to believe eyewitness testimony even if he heard it for himself. Flock admitted that I was right. That essentially means that in his eyes his hypothesis (Donny did nothing wrong) is not falsifiable. And that makes it a religious belief, not something that can be the subject of rational discussion. At least, not with him -- his case of Trump Fanboy Syndrome is incurable.

But I've never really thought otherwise. Flock does, however, make a useful illustration of just how far Donny's apologists are willing to go to refuse to see what's becoming increasingly obvious. And I continue to think that some of the people silently reading these threads are finding the extent of their denial educational and alarming.

And as for the Obama clip, what we have here is a democratic head of state acknowledging that he'll have more freedom to consider compromises that may be politically unpopular after an election than before one. If that surprises anyone at all, it's time to grow up and join the real world. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Buzzfeed's article isn't based on anything Cohen said.

Interesting. It turns out that Mueller says this was not based on anything ANYONE said, except for the sketchy writers. One would have to be an absolute moron to ever pay anything to either of them again.

I'm sure that apologies are forthcoming from those here who believed this, propagated it and then slammed others who questioned it.

If you're referring to me (since you quoted me), I'm not retracting a damn thing. What I said is that flock would refuse to believe eyewitness testimony even if he heard it for himself. Flock admitted that I was right. That essentially means that in his eyes his hypothesis (Donny did nothing wrong) is not falsifiable. And that makes it a religious belief, not something that can be the subject of rational discussion. At least, not with him -- his case of Trump Fanboy Syndrome is incurable.

But I've never really thought otherwise. Flock does, however, make a useful illustration of just how far Donny's apologists are willing to go to refuse to see what's becoming increasingly obvious. And I continue to think that some of the people silently reading these threads are finding the extent of their denial educational and alarming.

I wasn't specifically quoting you. Perhaps I should have quoted all three of you. Surprisingly, BJ was the least idiotic of the three of you this time.

Bob78164 wrote:You mean this story about how Donny directly instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress? Sounds like eyewitness testimony that Donny is guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice to me.

You wanted to believe this so badly that you ignored both the source and the established history of bullshit from the writers.

Bob78164 wrote:Won't matter. You still won't believe it even when you hear Cohen give that testimony under oath to the House. It's one of the primary symptoms of your serious case of Trump Fanboy Syndrome.

Do you still believe it even when you hear Mueller say it was all made up?

silverscreenselect wrote:It's amazing how you're so much more trusting of right wing news sources.

Because your sources, like Buzzfeed, are so interested in printing the truth?

silverscreenselect wrote:Flock may be happy to know he'll soon have the "evidence" that he needs. The House has already announced it's launching an investigation into these claims.

Do you think they'll investigate anyway, to prove Mueller wrong?

silverscreenselect wrote:You're like a football fan trying to convince yourself your team has a good chance to win when they're down two touchdowns in the last minute.

Like fans of this team? It ain't over till it's over.

Bob Juch wrote:Buzzfeed's article isn't based on anything.

Fixed it for ya!


Of the three of you, you're the one who always claims to do your own research prior to posting your opinions. How did you verify this story?

It appears you learned nothing from the Newsweek/Iraq visit false story.

You used to be much better than this.

Estonut wrote: Do you still believe it even when you hear Mueller say it was all made up?

First, Mueller did not say it was "all made up."

Mueller spokesman wrote:BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate."

Mueller rarely says anything about the case in public, and his court filings are very precise. I don't know exactly what his statement means but it's not a blanket denial of the story. It's amazing how Mueller gained tremendous credibility and integrity with you and all the other Mueller bashers in a matter of minutes once he released that statement.

No other news organization confirmed the Buzzfeed story, although I'm pretty sure they all checked it out with their own sources. Usually, when one organization breaks a big story, the others can confirm it within hours. And Buzzfeed's story was somewhat thinly sourced for this type of story. Again, a story of this nature usually has more than two sources.

But Buzzfeed has been very accurate on reporting some things, like the various Trump Tower stories they have broken over recent months. And, I would guess that they were on the line to their sources within minutes asking WTF was going on.

Contrary to what Trump supporters think, the mainstream news organizations take their credibility very seriously precisely for situations like this. They gave the Buzzfeed story enough weight to report on the fact it was issued.

BTW, the only "specific statement" I could find in the Buzzfeed story was this one:

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.

You, Flock, and Trump can run your victory laps tonight, but this story is far from over.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote: Do you still believe it even when you hear Mueller say it was all made up?

First, Mueller did not say it was "all made up."

Mueller spokesman wrote:BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate."

Sorry. To non-lawyers, a statement that is not accurate is called a lie. It is a work of fiction, or "made up."

silverscreenselect wrote:It's amazing how Mueller gained tremendous credibility and integrity with you and all the other Mueller bashers in a matter of minutes once he released that statement.]

Please cite a single instance where I have bashed Muller. I'll wait.

silverscreenselect wrote:No other news organization confirmed the Buzzfeed story, although I'm pretty sure they all checked it out with their own sources. Usually, when one organization breaks a big story, the others can confirm it within hours. And Buzzfeed's story was somewhat thinly sourced for this type of story. Again, a story of this nature usually has more than two sources.

Didn't the story itself mention the past lies and exaggerations by these phonies? They DID confirm that aspect, yet ran with it anyway.

silverscreenselect wrote:You, Flock, and Trump can run your victory laps tonight, but this story is far from over.

I'll do no such thing.