United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Only part of it though......yeah, that helps.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... idate.html

What a world

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?

Was she encouraged/paid by local or national Democrats? Did Gloria Alred guide her?

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.

Allred should be disbarred.



quote="133743Hokie"]

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?

Was she encouraged/paid by local or national Democrats? Did Gloria Alred guide her?[/quote]

BigDave 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.

DA are his admins initials

awesome guy wrote:

BigDave 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.

DA are his admins initials

Wait, so his admin signed the yearbook? (And the divorce decree?)

BigDave wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

BigDave 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.

DA are his admins initials

Wait, so his admin signed the yearbook? (And the divorce decree?)

Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.

awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.

Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?

BigDave wrote:

awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.

Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?

MSM

HokieHam wrote:Only part of it though......yeah, that helps.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... idate.html

I foresee a flip in the polling numbers.

HokieFanDC wrote:

HokieHam wrote:Only part of it though......yeah, that helps.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... idate.html

I foresee a flip in the polling numbers.

They were close already and I thought he was going to win in any event.

HokieHam wrote:Only part of it though......yeah, that helps.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12 ... idate.html

Quelle surprise...

Not really...

oaktonhokie wrote:Allred should be disbarred.

No, keep her around. She makes it easier to tell who's lying.

Is there any larger indicator that your full of sh*t then hiring that woman to represent you?

FireFuente wrote:

oaktonhokie wrote:Allred should be disbarred.

No, keep her around. She makes it easier to tell who's lying.

Is there any larger indicator that your full of sh*t then hiring that woman to represent you?

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?

awesome guy wrote:

BigDave wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

BigDave 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.

DA are his admins initials

Wait, so his admin signed the yearbook? (And the divorce decree?)

Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.

Yep. My guess is that she will slowly walk back the entire thing

USN_Hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

BigDave wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

BigDave 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.

DA are his admins initials

Wait, so his admin signed the yearbook? (And the divorce decree?)

Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.

Yep. My guess is that she will slowly walk back the entire thing

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.

BigDave wrote:

awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.

Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?

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:

FireFuente wrote:

oaktonhokie wrote:Allred should be disbarred.

No, keep her around. She makes it easier to tell who's lying.

Is there any larger indicator that your full of sh*t then hiring that woman to represent you?

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?

they thought they could get away with it, after thunder thighs got away with all of her fraud....learn from the best I guess

BigDave wrote:

awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.

Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?

CNN, the most trusted news source, had it on today. Just saying.

HokieFanDC wrote:

BigDave wrote:

awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.

Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?

CNN, the most trusted news source, had it on today. Just saying.

It was known the day after the accusation, just saying.

HokieFanDC wrote: 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.

=============================

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/

UpstateSCHokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote: 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.

=============================

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/

Yes. You know, the one that corrects mistakes.
Unlike sites like gatewaypundit, breitbart, and the other websites that people post on here that are completely FOS.

BigDave wrote:

awesome guy wrote:Divorce decree only, DA is how she indicated that she was signing on his behalf. The yearbook is a fraud.

Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftop?

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.