![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... idate.html
what part does she still say he wrote? And has she given any explanation as to why the embellished what she said he did write in there?HokieHam wrote:Only part of it though......yeah, that helps.![]()
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... idate.html
what part does she still say he wrote? And has she given any explanation as to why the embellished what she said he did write in there?HokieHam wrote:Only part of it though......yeah, that helps.![]()
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... idate.html
DA are his admins initialsBigDave wrote:Wait, she is saying he wrote the inscription and signature but not the "2-22-77 Bld Hickory House"?
It seems pretty obvious from looking closely at it that the 7's in the subscript weren't written by the same person who wrote the 7's in the message.
The problem I have with it is the more obvious one - he was not a DA in 1977 and wouldn't have signed the yearbook that way.
She might not have known that, though - because he did sign her divorce paperwork that way - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ro ... ed-n821936 - so if she copied his signature from that, she may not have known any better.
Wait, so his admin signed the yearbook? (And the divorce decree?)awesome guy wrote:DA are his admins initialsBigDave wrote:Wait, she is saying he wrote the inscription and signature but not the "2-22-77 Bld Hickory House"?
It seems pretty obvious from looking closely at it that the 7's in the subscript weren't written by the same person who wrote the 7's in the message.
The problem I have with it is the more obvious one - he was not a DA in 1977 and wouldn't have signed the yearbook that way.
She might not have known that, though - because he did sign her divorce paperwork that way - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ro ... ed-n821936 - so if she copied his signature from that, she may not have known any better.
Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.BigDave wrote:Wait, so his admin signed the yearbook? (And the divorce decree?)awesome guy wrote:DA are his admins initialsBigDave wrote:Wait, she is saying he wrote the inscription and signature but not the "2-22-77 Bld Hickory House"?
It seems pretty obvious from looking closely at it that the 7's in the subscript weren't written by the same person who wrote the 7's in the message.
The problem I have with it is the more obvious one - he was not a DA in 1977 and wouldn't have signed the yearbook that way.
She might not have known that, though - because he did sign her divorce paperwork that way - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ro ... ed-n821936 - so if she copied his signature from that, she may not have known any better.
Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.
MSMBigDave wrote:Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.
I foresee a flip in the polling numbers.HokieHam wrote:Only part of it though......yeah, that helps.![]()
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... idate.html
They were close already and I thought he was going to win in any event.HokieFanDC wrote:I foresee a flip in the polling numbers.HokieHam wrote:Only part of it though......yeah, that helps.![]()
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... idate.html
Quelle surprise...HokieHam wrote:Only part of it though......yeah, that helps.![]()
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... idate.html
No, keep her around. She makes it easier to tell who's lying.oaktonhokie wrote:Allred should be disbarred.
Which if what is said here is correct, then she almost seems like she's intentionally tanking it ... maybe she is a Moore plant, whose purpose is to make a provably false accusation and thus discredit the other accusers?FireFuente wrote:No, keep her around. She makes it easier to tell who's lying.oaktonhokie wrote:Allred should be disbarred.
Is there any larger indicator that your full of sh*t then hiring that woman to represent you?
Yep. My guess is that she will slowly walk back the entire thingawesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.BigDave wrote:Wait, so his admin signed the yearbook? (And the divorce decree?)awesome guy wrote:DA are his admins initialsBigDave wrote:Wait, she is saying he wrote the inscription and signature but not the "2-22-77 Bld Hickory House"?
It seems pretty obvious from looking closely at it that the 7's in the subscript weren't written by the same person who wrote the 7's in the message.
The problem I have with it is the more obvious one - he was not a DA in 1977 and wouldn't have signed the yearbook that way.
She might not have known that, though - because he did sign her divorce paperwork that way - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ro ... ed-n821936 - so if she copied his signature from that, she may not have known any better.
After the election and while the MSM knows it's a lie. Totally shocked that Captain Jagdish, H2, Elberto and the other Unusuals have no comment and apparently see nothing wrong with lying to smear Moore. This why Captain has no morals for which to compromise.USN_Hokie wrote:Yep. My guess is that she will slowly walk back the entire thingawesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.BigDave wrote:Wait, so his admin signed the yearbook? (And the divorce decree?)awesome guy wrote:DA are his admins initialsBigDave wrote:Wait, she is saying he wrote the inscription and signature but not the "2-22-77 Bld Hickory House"?
It seems pretty obvious from looking closely at it that the 7's in the subscript weren't written by the same person who wrote the 7's in the message.
The problem I have with it is the more obvious one - he was not a DA in 1977 and wouldn't have signed the yearbook that way.
She might not have known that, though - because he did sign her divorce paperwork that way - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ro ... ed-n821936 - so if she copied his signature from that, she may not have known any better.
it was and ignored as with most of the story from the supposed diddling of the 14 YO, many items in her account either could not happen or made no sense once it was looked into.....but we have to beleive the people, humans do not lie!BigDave wrote:Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.
they thought they could get away with it, after thunder thighs got away with all of her fraud....learn from the best I guessBigDave wrote:Which if what is said here is correct, then she almost seems like she's intentionally tanking it ... maybe she is a Moore plant, whose purpose is to make a provably false accusation and thus discredit the other accusers?FireFuente wrote:No, keep her around. She makes it easier to tell who's lying.oaktonhokie wrote:Allred should be disbarred.
Is there any larger indicator that your full of sh*t then hiring that woman to represent you?
BigDave wrote:Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.
It was known the day after the accusation, just saying.HokieFanDC wrote:BigDave wrote:Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.
CNN, the most trusted news source, had it on today. Just saying.
Wait....you mean this "most trusted news source?" This is Brian Ross stuff man.HokieFanDC wrote: CNN, the most trusted news source, had it on today. Just saying.
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Wait....you mean this "most trusted news source?" This is Brian Ross stuff man.HokieFanDC wrote: CNN, the most trusted news source, had it on today. Just saying.
=============================
CNN Botches Major ‘Bombshell’ Alleging Contacts Between Don Jr. And WikiLeaks
Chuck Ross
2:16 PM 12/08/2017
CNN misreported key details of an offer made to Donald Trump Jr. last year of a batch of stolen Wikileaks documents.
The story, which CNN published on Friday and covered extensively on TV, was touted as the first evidence that the Trump campaign was given a heads-up about documents stolen from Democrats.
But the story appears to have been riddled with errors, while also lacking key context.
Perhaps the most jarring error in the CNN report is the date on which Trump Jr. was sent the email. The network reported that a person named Mike Erickson emailed Trump Jr. and others on the Trump campaign on Sept. 4, 2016, with a link to Wikileaks documents as well as a decryption key to access them.
The email also offered access to emails that had been stolen from former Sec. of State Colin Powell, according to CNN.
But a copy of the email provided to The Daily Caller shows that Erickson sent the email on Sept. 14.
That date is significant because WikiLeaks had released a batch of stolen documents on Sept. 13. The group touted its release of the DNC documents, which were published by Guccifer 2.0.
The email shows that Erickson messaged Trump Jr. stating that “Wikileaks has uploaded another (huge 678 mb) archive of files from the DNC.”
“It is too big for me to send you by e-mail attachments, but you can download it yourselves,” he added, providing a link to the same website cited by Wikileaks the day before.
He also included a link to a decryption key that could be used to access the documents.
Michael Erickson email to Donald Trump Jr., Sept. 14, 2016.
The Washington Post first reported on the true date and wording of the Erickson email.
The site that Erickson linked to leads to a page where a file with the same file name referenced in the Wikileaks tweet could be downloaded.
Powell’s emails were also published online on Sept. 13. DC Leaks, a group that has been affiliated with the Russian government, published the documents online. The group granted access to the documents to several news organizations, including The Daily Caller.
How CNN got its report so wrong is unclear.
The article states that its information was based on a read-out of the Trump Jr. email provided by an unnamed source. Trump Jr.’s lawyer, Alan Futerfas, speculated on Friday that the source was on the Democratic side of the House Intelligence Committee, which interviewed Trump Jr. earlier this week.
Erickson also appears not to be a super-secret Kremlin agent. The Post identified him as the president of an aviation management company.
Attempts made by The Daily Caller to contact him were unsuccessful.
Futerfas, the lawyer for Trump Jr., said that the real estate executive received “tons of unsolicited emails” during the campaign.
“The email was never read or responded to — and the House Intelligence Committee knows this,” he said in a statement.
“This email arrived after published media reports disclosed 12 hours earlier that hacked documents had been posted. The suggestion that this information was not public is false.”
Futerfas blasted the House Intelligence Committee over what he says is its leak of the story.
“It is profoundly disappointing that members of the House Intelligence Committee would deliberately leak a document, with the misleading suggestion that the information was not public, when they know that there is not a scintilla of evidence that Mr. Trump Jr. read or responded to the email,” he said
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/cnn-b ... wikileaks/
It was when it came out 6 weeks ago, which is why you didn't hear anymore about this woman. The signature in the yearbook is a replica of the one from her divorce papers, signed and initialed by his assistant! Nothing like his.BigDave wrote:Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.