Leroy42 wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » From the link provided it noted Hannity said he does not select, control, or know the details about the investments. My financial investor invests for me. I honestly can’t tell you what I’m invested in. I complain against corporate green entities all the time, and who knows, I might even be invested in them. And I think that is a real stretch comparing making simple investments that he has nothing to do with other than giving them money, to what Hillary did with the Clinton Foundation… A real stretch! And where would a conflict of interest be involving Mueller or Cohen? Do you think he invested in some Russian condos? notobtuse, I would have thought that at this stage you would know that the very least you should do is to wait. Anyone that ever comes out early to defend Trump or anything to do with him invariably ends up looking foolish as the real truth comes out. It follows a similar pattern. Journo: You guys were up to X Trump/supporters: No way, fake news, your a HC supporter Journo2: We have some documents to prove that Trump/supporters: Yeah well, at least we love America and last year you printed something that was wrong so .....ObamaClinton! So Hannity comes out with the following: "It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly needed such investment" So which is it. HE didn't know or he wants the credit? Because the line you went off is that this is little more than an investment fund, third party. It could be in real estate, or pornography, or abortion clinics. So which one of you going to go with?
notobtuse wrote: » From the link provided it noted Hannity said he does not select, control, or know the details about the investments. My financial investor invests for me. I honestly can’t tell you what I’m invested in. I complain against corporate green entities all the time, and who knows, I might even be invested in them. And I think that is a real stretch comparing making simple investments that he has nothing to do with other than giving them money, to what Hillary did with the Clinton Foundation… A real stretch! And where would a conflict of interest be involving Mueller or Cohen? Do you think he invested in some Russian condos?
notobtuse wrote: » Lawyers usually have many clients. In my opinion it was only a fishing expedition by Mueller to get the judge to get Hannity’s information. And I understand the judge wasn’t going to demand to know Cohen’s clients, but was talked into it by CNN and The NY Times with hunt lawyers. WTF? Isn’t this Mueller’s investigation? I doubt anyone with any common sense thought Hannity would be involved in some shady Russia or porn star deal. It has now become Mueller going off the rails. And it was Attorney/Client privileged. I wonder how much more ignoring law we will see out of Mueller. What good did finding out Hannity’s name do the investigation other than to help to try and destroy the conservative pundit? We’ll agree to disagree on the Hannity/Clinton comparison. Political favors from HUD or Trump??? I bet no one even knew Hannity’s name was associated with the group that bought the distressed properties. And there were probably several other high profile celebrity names associated with that group. Perhaps we should drag all their names through the mud.
notobtuse wrote: » Leroy42 wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » From the link provided it noted Hannity said he does not select, control, or know the details about the investments. My financial investor invests for me. I honestly can’t tell you what I’m invested in. I complain against corporate green entities all the time, and who knows, I might even be invested in them. And I think that is a real stretch comparing making simple investments that he has nothing to do with other than giving them money, to what Hillary did with the Clinton Foundation… A real stretch! And where would a conflict of interest be involving Mueller or Cohen? Do you think he invested in some Russian condos? notobtuse, I would have thought that at this stage you would know that the very least you should do is to wait. Anyone that ever comes out early to defend Trump or anything to do with him invariably ends up looking foolish as the real truth comes out. It follows a similar pattern. Journo: You guys were up to X Trump/supporters: No way, fake news, your a HC supporter Journo2: We have some documents to prove that Trump/supporters: Yeah well, at least we love America and last year you printed something that was wrong so .....ObamaClinton! So Hannity comes out with the following: "It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly needed such investment" So which is it. HE didn't know or he wants the credit? Because the line you went off is that this is little more than an investment fund, third party. It could be in real estate, or pornography, or abortion clinics. So which one of you going to go with? Tell me... If Hannity did invest in real estate, or pornography, or abortion clinics, what does it have to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 elections? This investigation has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime, IMO.
notobtuse wrote: » Lawyers usually have many clients. In my opinion it was only a fishing expedition by Mueller to get the judge to get Hannity’s information. And I understand the judge wasn’t going to demand to know Cohen’s clients, but was talked into it by CNN and The NY Times with hunt lawyers. WTF? Isn’t this Mueller’s investigation? I doubt anyone with any common sense thought Hannity would be involved in some shady Russia or porn star deal. It has now become Mueller going off the rails. And it was Attorney/Client privileged. I wonder how much more ignoring law we will see out of Mueller. What good did finding out Hannity’s name do the investigation other than to help to try and destroy the conservative pundit. We’ll agree to disagree on the Hannity/Clinton comparison. Political favors from HUD or Trump. I bet no one even knew Hannity’s name was associated with the group that bought the distressed properties. And there were probably several other high profile celebrity names associated with that group. Perhaps we should drag all their names through the mud.
notobtuse wrote: » Tell me... If Hannity did invest in real estate, or pornography, or abortion clinics, what does it have to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 elections? This investigation has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime, IMO.
Leroy42 wrote: » notobtuse, I would have thought that at this stage you would know that the very least you should do is to wait. Anyone that ever comes out early to defend Trump or anything to do with him invariably ends up looking foolish as the real truth comes out.
LeinsterDub wrote: » https://twitter.com/funder/status/988517173051183104?s=20 Honestly don't know what to make of this big deal? Or just a other day in Trump world?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » In pantheon of The Donald's lies, it's just one more. However, it lends further credence to the Golden Shower tapes and the possibility that he is utterly compromised.
Quin_Dub wrote: » I sometimes wonder about this.. I think that Trump is just a reflexive liar , in that he just says whatever he thinks is most appropriate at that specific moment in time without any consideration for the truth. So it's actually hard to know if the lie was told explicitly to hide the truth or if the lie was told because that's just what came out of his mouth right then.... He lies so often about such utterly ridiculous and easily proved/disproved things that it's actually hard to discern if there's a plan behind it.
Pepefrogok wrote: » Trump the deal maker swaying RP to get his guy in, I assume Iran are about to capitulate to the Don as we speak just like North Korea did, bet Iran are wishing the president was still someone they could easily push around, not any more! Only question now is where will the Donald keep his Nobel peace prize?
BabyCheeses wrote: » So far his deal making involves throwing it away and then come crawling back to be told nah, we'll wait for the next guy. You lot and your peace prizes. It's funny watching how desperately they want Trump to be the exact same as Obama.
Hurrache wrote: » Oh, Trump's going to row back on his rhetoric on Iran too? I'm pretty sure you can't get a peace prize on the back of previous administrations deals.
Leroy42 wrote: » So lets look at this. Trump is known to have used secret payments to avoid news of his extra marital affairs getting out. Trump lied to the director of the FBI on his whereabouts in an attempt to 'prove' that he wasn't in an hotel room undertaking in extra marital affairs with hookers. This cornerstone of his defence is now shown to be a lie. So what could we possibly take from it? Should we go with the view that there is nothing at all in the story and that the Steele Dossier is complete bogus... or should we take on board the evidence that Trump has no hang-ups about extra marital affairs, has no hang-ups about lying about them and has no hang-ups about using bribes and money to make the situation go away. No of this proves he did anything but as I mentioned before, every time we think we have got to the end of something more real evidence comes out that shows that Trump is a total liar. Why would anyone place any credibility on anything a proven liar has to say?
Leroy42 wrote: » My own view on the dossier is that history will show that the American people were given clear and credible evidence that they had a serious problem on their hands but due to team loyalties and looking to get one over the 'libtards' they refused to see the danger and actively participated in the weakening of their own country. Whether 100%, 50% or even 10% of the claims end up being true, the fact that so many were willing to simply dismiss it out of hand without any investigation will be something they will have to explain to later generations. History, IMO, will judge them very harshly.
aloyisious wrote: » According to CNN, it seem's that Admiral Ronny Jackson is getting a hard time at his approval hearing from senators on both sides in relation to his appointment to head the VA. It seem's the rumour mill has heard about - as yet -undisclosed factors which may disbar the Admiral from being appointed as head of the V.A.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Drinking at work, hostile work environment, improper dispensing of meds. Allegedly.
BabyCheeses wrote: » Whatever happened to 4chan making the dossier? They tried to explain it away with that at the start but that idea just suddenly disappeared.
Leroy42 wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » Leroy42 wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » From the link provided it noted Hannity said he does not select, control, or know the details about the investments. My financial investor invests for me. I honestly can’t tell you what I’m invested in. I complain against corporate green entities all the time, and who knows, I might even be invested in them. And I think that is a real stretch comparing making simple investments that he has nothing to do with other than giving them money, to what Hillary did with the Clinton Foundation… A real stretch! And where would a conflict of interest be involving Mueller or Cohen? Do you think he invested in some Russian condos? notobtuse, I would have thought that at this stage you would know that the very least you should do is to wait. Anyone that ever comes out early to defend Trump or anything to do with him invariably ends up looking foolish as the real truth comes out. It follows a similar pattern. Journo: You guys were up to X Trump/supporters: No way, fake news, your a HC supporter Journo2: We have some documents to prove that Trump/supporters: Yeah well, at least we love America and last year you printed something that was wrong so .....ObamaClinton! So Hannity comes out with the following: "It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly needed such investment" So which is it. HE didn't know or he wants the credit? Because the line you went off is that this is little more than an investment fund, third party. It could be in real estate, or pornography, or abortion clinics. So which one of you going to go with? Tell me... If Hannity did invest in real estate, or pornography, or abortion clinics, what does it have to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 elections? This investigation has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime, IMO. Nothing, and nobody said it did. Even you stated that it wasn't the state looking for public knowledge of the 3rd client, that was the media calling for freedom of the press. What it does show is that nothing Hannity says in relation to Cohen or Trump can be seen as anything other than biased. From people that seem so concerned about fake news, it is staggering the lengths you are willing to go to avoid having to admit that one of the main cheerleaders for Trump is so compromised.
aloyisious wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » Lawyers usually have many clients. In my opinion it was only a fishing expedition by Mueller to get the judge to get Hannity’s information. And I understand the judge wasn’t going to demand to know Cohen’s clients, but was talked into it by CNN and The NY Times with hunt lawyers. WTF? Isn’t this Mueller’s investigation? I doubt anyone with any common sense thought Hannity would be involved in some shady Russia or porn star deal. It has now become Mueller going off the rails. And it was Attorney/Client privileged. I wonder how much more ignoring law we will see out of Mueller. What good did finding out Hannity’s name do the investigation other than to help to try and destroy the conservative pundit. We’ll agree to disagree on the Hannity/Clinton comparison. Political favors from HUD or Trump. I bet no one even knew Hannity’s name was associated with the group that bought the distressed properties. And there were probably several other high profile celebrity names associated with that group. Perhaps we should drag all their names through the mud. Well that's three disclaimers on your part for Sean - excluding this apparent insider information claim [And I understand the judge wasn’t going to demand to know Cohen’s clients, but was talked into it by CNN and The NY Times with hunt lawyers] - plus an attempt at misleading us [WTF? Isn’t this Mueller’s investigation?] which legally it isn't. In effect he's recused himself from the NY investigation. That last is pretty fair for an attempt at the truth. Sean Hannity has not denied the core of the story, that he has invested in properties previously used as their homesby people who had to move out after foreclosure by the banks, instead he has confirmed his ownership of such seized properties, even if he say's he did not know the exact details of his investments. Edit: re the actual news that SH has investments in property, is that info about SH's investments just info from a breaking news story or part of the ongoing NYC investigation? If it's NOT a discovery made by NYC investigators ot the other [Special Counsel] investigation, then are you making a mistake in putting the discovery down to them?
