Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 1:36 pm » wrote:

Misty » 25 Jul 2019 1:27 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 1:15 pm wrote:Gosh, are you accusing not only Barr, but Rosenstein and their entire team of obstructing justice?

I'm accusing Barr of lying.

Except that his conclusions was also the work of Rosenstein and the rest of the team.
Are you accusing them all of obstructing justice?

I'm accusing them of lying when they said that the Mueller report totally exonerated Trump.

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 1:36 pm » wrote:

Misty: You know what's unpatriotic Precious?
Willingly taking help from a foreign adversary in order to win an election.

You mean like Hillary Clinton did via the Steele Dossier, which came from Russian officials some of whom were close to Putin.

Close to Putin?
That's a new lie I haven't heard before.

So what you are saying is that Putin was actually trying to help Hillary and hurt Trump, because that is not what he said in Helsinki.

Jeff Mason from Reuters: President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

PUTIN: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the US/Russia relationship back to normal.

Can you name any of Steele's sources?

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 1:36 pm » wrote:Not to mention the many felonies Obama and Hillary Clinton's officials committed in an attempt to steal the election, then topple Trump in a coup.
Which you of course will censor, like you censor all the truth I cite.

Isn't it ironic that they were trying to steal the election yet no dirt about Trump ever came out until after the election.

Both candidates were under investigation, yet we only knew about one of them.
That is one **** up way to run a coup.

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 1:57 pm » wrote:

Misty » 25 Jul 2019 1:52 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 1:36 pm » wrote:Except that his conclusions was also the work of Rosenstein and the rest of the team.Are you accusing them all of obstructing justice?

I'm accusing them of lying when they said that the Mueller report totally exonerated Trump.

That would be perjury by Barr, except I don't hear any Democrats demanding he be indicted.
And it would be obstruction of justice for all of them. I don't hear any Democrats demanding indictments for those crimes either.

Have you not heard the Democrats who say that Barr should be impeached?
There are so many crimes that they can hardly keep up.

I can't name one member of the Trump administration who has not committed perjury.
Well, Christopher Wray, maybe.

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 1:57 pm » wrote:

Misty: Can you name any of Steele's sources?

I've cited all this evidence, except that you refuse to read any of it. Both threads are on page one.
I'm absolutely sure you'll spend the next couple hours reading all about it.

I'm not going to wade through pages of your ****.
If you named Christopher Steele's sources somewhere, then it should be pretty easy for you to post it again.

But we both know you won't because of course as usual you are lying.

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 2:09 pm » wrote:If I'm, wrong about everything, why do you keep censoring my posts and what I cite?

I do NOT censor them.
I just move them, because I do not want my thread filled with your repetitive ****, propaganda and lies.

While Cadet McBonespurs was busy getting five deferments and a phony doctor's note to avoid serving his country, Robert Swan Mueller III was rehabbing a bad knee so he could volunteer to serve as a Marine and fight in Vietnam.

While serving in Vietnam, Mueller received an enemy gunshot wound in the thigh, recovered, and returned to lead his platoon.

Mueller's military decorations and awards include: the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V", Purple Heart Medal, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals with Combat "V", Combat Action Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with four service stars, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and Parachutist Badge.

Meanwhile Trump said he felt like a 'very great and brave soldier' citing his efforts to avoid sexually transmitted diseases on the dating scene to his own 'personal Vietnam.'

Mueller went on to run the FBI after 9/11 and was so well respected that he was held over after his term expired.

Trump went on to become a reality TV star.

Yesterday Republican members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees trashed one of these guys in defense of the other.

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 3:31 pm » wrote:

I've cited all this evidence,
except that you refuse to read any of it
Both threads are on page one.
I'm absolutely sure you'll spend the next couple hours reading all about it.

I'm not going to wade through pages of your ****.
If you named Christopher Steele's sources somewhere, then it should be pretty easy for you to post it again.
But we both know you won't because of course as usual you are lying.

Speaking of lying, are you calling The Hill's John Solomon a liar?
National Review?
The WSJ?
Powerline?
The Washington Examiner?
Both my threads are on page one of the forum, but you prefer to be willfully ignorant because my sources would expose you for the psychopathic Democrat Talking Point Liar you are.

As long as you keep removing my name (and now even yours) from your posts when you quote me, you get nothing from me.
How the **** is anyone supposed to know who said what?

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 3:32 pm » wrote:The last time I cited information in response to one of your questions, you censored it, brownshirt.
Fat chance I'll waste my time again.

Spare me the ****.
You never cite anything in response to anyone except to refer them to your stupid threads where you claim to have cited the evidence many, many times.

You have been performing that same routine for years.
No one is buying that crap any more.

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 3:51 pm » wrote:Yadda, yadda, yadda.........

What part of this did you not understand you gaping asshole?

Misty » 25 Jul 2019 3:36 pm » wrote:As long as you keep removing my name from your posts when you quote me, you get nothing from me.

You made three more posts after that with my name removed.
I'm about to lock the door.

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 4:02 pm » wrote:

Misty:What part of this did you not understand you gaping asshole?

You made three more posts after that with my name removed.
I'm about to lock the door.

Lock the door, wackob. When I leave it in, you immediately censor it.

Newsflash you jackass, I will move your **** to the PG whether you leave my name in it or not.
That has nothing to do with it, so what's the real reason?

Termin8tor » 25 Jul 2019 4:02 pm » wrote:You're a psychopathic liar, a propagandist and a coward.
Everyone with half an ounce of common sense sees it.

I guess that leaves you out.

So while everyone was watching the Mueller hearings yesterday, Trump quietly vetoed three bi-partisan bills prohibiting arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Trump vetoes 3 bills prohibiting arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Foreign policy for sale.

Representative Val Demings (D-FL) questioned Robert Mueller at both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee hearings.

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:

DEMINGS: Director Mueller, a couple of my colleagues right here wanted to talk to you or ask you about lies, so let's talk about lies. According to your report, page 9, Volume 1, witnesses lied to your offices and to Congress. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russia interference according to your report other than the individuals who plead guilty to crimes based on their lying to you and your team. Did other witnesses lie to you?

MUELLER: I think there are probably a spectrum of witnesses in terms of those who are not telling the full truth and those who are outright liars.

DEMINGS: Thank you very much, outright liars. It is fair to say then that there were limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of both Russia election interference and obstruction of justice.

MUELLER: That's usually the case.

DEMINGS: And that lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation?

MUELLER: I would generally agree with that.

DEMINGS: Thank you so much, Director Mueller. You will be hearing more from me in the next hearing, so I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Correa. Thank you.

INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE:

DEMINGS: Thank you so much Mr. Chairman and Director Mueller, thank you so much for being a person of honor and integrity. Thank you for your service to the nation, we are certainly better for it.

Director Mueller, I too want to focus on the written responses that the president did provide and the continued efforts to lie and cover up what happened during the 2016 election. Were the president answers submitted under oath?

MUELLER: Yes, yes.

DEMINGS: Thank you, they were. Were these all the answers your office wanted to ask the president about Russia interference in the 2016 election?

MUELLER: No, not necessarily.

DEMINGS: So there were other...

MUELLER: Yes.

DEMINGS: ...questions that you wanted to answer.
Did you analyze his written answers on Russia interference to draw conclusions about the president's credibility?

MUELLER: No, it was perhaps one of the factors, but nothing more than that.

DEMINGS: It was one of the factors? So, what did you determine about the president's credibility?

MUELLER: And that I can't get into.

DEMINGS: Director Mueller, I know based on your decades of experience, you've probably had an opportunity to analyze the credibility of countless witnesses, but you weren't able to do so with this witness?

MUELLER: Well with every witness, particularly a -- a leading witness, one assesses the credibility day by day, witness by witness, document by document. And that's what happened in this case, so we started with very little and then by the end we ended up with a fair amount -- fair amount.

DEMINGS: Thank you. Well let's go through some of the answers to take a closer look at his credibility, because it seems to me, Director Mueller, that his answers were not credible at all. Did some of President Trump's incomplete answers relate to Trump Tower Moscow?

MUELLER: Yes.

DEMINGS: For example, did you ask the president whether he had had at any time, directed or suggested that -- that discussions about Trump Moscow project should cease?

MUELLER: Should what?

DEMINGS: Cease.

MUELLER: Do you have a citation?

DEMINGS: Yes. We're still in Appendix C, Section 1, 7.

MUELLER: The first page?

DEMINGS: Yes. Because the president did not answer whether he had at any time directed or suggested that discussions about the Trump Moscow project should cease, but he has since made public comments about this topic.

MUELLER: OK. And the question was?

DEMINGS: Did the president -- well let me go onto the next. Did the president fully answer that question in his written statement to you about the Trump Moscow project ceasing? Again, in Appendix C.

MUELLER: No. And can you direct me to the particular paragraph your inverting (ph) to?

DEMINGS: It would be Appendix C-C1, but let me move forward. Nine days after he submitted his written answers, didn't the president say publicly that he, quote, "decided not to do the project, " unquote. And that is in your report.

MUELLER: I am not -- I'd ask you -- I'd ask you if you would to point out the particular paragraph that you're focused on --

DEMINGS: OK, we can move on. Did the president answer your follow-up questions? According to the report there were follow-up questions because of the president's incomplete answers about the Moscow project.
Did the president answer your follow up questions either in writing or orally? We're now in Volume 2, page 150-151.

MUELLER: No.

DEMINGS: He did not. In fact, there were many questions that you asked the president that he simply didn't answer, isn't that correct?

MUELLER: True.

DEMINGS: And there were many answers that contradicted other evidence you had gathered during the investigation, isn't that correct Director Mueller?

MUELLER: Yes.

DEMINGS: Director Mueller, for example the president is written as or stated (ph) he did not recall having advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks releases, is that correct?

MUELLER: I think that's what he said.

DEMINGS: But didn't your investigation uncover evidence that the president did in fact have advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks public releases of e-mails damaging to his opponent?

MUELLER: And I can't get in to that area.

DEMINGS: Did your investigation determine after very careful vetting or Rick Gates and Michael Cohen's that you found them to be credible?

MUELLER: That we found the president to be credible?

DEMINGS: That you found Gates and Cohen to be credible in their statements about WikiLeaks --

MUELLER: Those are areas I'm not going to discuss.

DEMINGS: OK. Could you say Director Mueller that the president was credible?

MUELLER: I can't answer that question.

DEMINGS: Director Mueller, isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did his answers show that he wasn't always being truthful.

MUELLER: There (ph) -- I would say generally.

DEMINGS: "Generally." Director Mueller it's one thing for the president to lie to the American people about your investigation, falsely claiming that you found no collusion and no obstruction -- but its (ph) something else altogether for him to get away with not answering your questions and lying about them.

And as a former law enforcement officer of almost 30 years, I find that a disgrace to our criminal justice system.

Thank you so much, I yield back to the Chairman.

Titties N Beer » 26 Jul 2019 3:26 pm » wrote:Funny to see people wanting something so bad...so bad. Then to realize everything was a hoax. God I'd feel like a dumb ***.

What's even funnier is to see people calling something that is so so clear, a hoax.

Titties N Beer » 26 Jul 2019 3:26 pm » wrote:Funny to see people wanting something so bad...so bad. Then to realize everything was a hoax. God I'd feel like a dumb ***.

What's even funnier is to see people calling something that is so so clear, a hoax.
You can't just wish something away by calling it a hoax.
And you make yourself look really dumb by repeating the orange skidmark's lies.

He's losing his ****.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/investiga ... ssion=true

Termin8tor » 28 Jul 2019 8:37 am » wrote:The NY Times, two years late, reported that the Steele Dossier was likely Russian disinformation.

When it comes to disinformation, the Russians have nothing on you.

Here's a huge threat to US democracy.

Is one single Democrat going to talk about it?

Will the corrupt liberal MSM report it prominently?

I doubt it.

Because they don't care.

China Covertly Subverting Trump Reelection

Dissident billionaire outlines Beijing's four-pronged influence strategy
Guo Wengui / Getty Images
Bill Gertz - JULY 30, 2019 5:00 AM
China is conducting an aggressive disinformation and influence campaign designed to block the re-election of President Trump in 2020, according to a dissident Chinese billionaire who until recently was close to senior Beijing leaders.

Guo Wengui, an exiled Chinese real estate tycoon-turned-anti-communist critic, said in an interview that details of the influence operation were disclosed recently by Chinese Vice President Wang Qishan in Beijing.

The campaign has been underway since the 2018 mid-term election and involves enlisting pro-China elements inside the United States to end the Trump administration after four years.
https://freebeacon.com/national-securit ... eelection/

Annoyed Liberall » 11 Mar 2011 1:49 pm » wrote:Wow. What a dick.

i can see you are just one piece of work arent you chica?

Termin8tor » 30 Jul 2019 9:28 am » wrote:Here's a huge threat to US democracy.

Is one single Democrat going to talk about it?

Will the corrupt liberal MSM report it prominently?

I doubt it.well good for them i love china

Because they don't care.

well good for them i love china go china!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZlD5RXkeuA

billbatard » 30 Jul 2019 9:41 am » wrote:

Annoyed Liberall » 11 Mar 2011 1:49 pm » wrote:Wow. What a dick.

i can see you are just one piece of work arent you chica?

Whatever you say.

I can see that you are not able to answer questions.
We have a few other like you here.
Carry on.

Annoyed Liberall » 30 Jul 2019 9:44 am » wrote: Whatever you say.

I can see that you are not able to answer questions.
We have a few other like you here.
Carry on.