Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Dog said:

It's Ok...I didn't expect an answer.

Well, why would you when you repeatedly refused to answer mine? I'll happily start answering yours when you man up and start doing the same. I bet you won't make the same offer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Well, why would you when you repeatedly refused to answer mine? I'll happily start answering yours when you man up and start doing the same. I bet you won't make the same offer. 

Dog is not here to answer questions. His role is to spew pro Trump spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Dog is not here to answer questions. His role is to spew pro Trump spin.

Dog is to Trump, as Gator is to Florida.   Should piss you both off.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Well, why would you when you repeatedly refused to answer mine? I'll happily start answering yours when you man up and start doing the same. I bet you won't make the same offer. 

No.. I'm and I'm not going to ask you for a commitment from you to answer my questions and I'm certainly not going to commit to answering yours, can't imagine anything I'd be less interested in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Dog is to Trump, as Gator is to Florida.   Should piss you both off.  

I don’t follow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

No.. I'm and I'm not going to ask you for a commitment from you to answer my questions and I'm certainly not going to commit to answering yours, can't imagine anything I'd be less interested in.

Who asked for a commitment? I merely pointed out I'm willing to offer one whilst everyone knows you're too gutless to put yourself in a situation where you can't dodge questions without looking even more craven than you already do.  

Do feel free to keep bringing it up though. It's amusing watching you paint yourself into corners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Who asked for a commitment? I merely pointed out I'm willing to offer one whilst everyone knows you're too gutless to put yourself in a situation where you can't dodge questions without looking even more craven than you already do.  

Do feel free to keep bringing it up though. It's amusing watching you paint yourself into corners. 

"I'll happily start answering yours when you man up and start doing the same. I bet you won't make the same offer"....BS

That's for sure....I'd rather shoot myself in the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

"I'll happily start answering yours when you man up and start doing the same. I bet you won't make the same offer"....BS

That's for sure....I'd rather shoot myself in the head.

Couldn't hurt....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

"I'll happily start answering yours when you man up and start doing the same. I bet you won't make the same offer"....BS

That's for sure....I'd rather shoot myself in the head.

Please please please.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With our luck he'd only wound himself and make himself even stupider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Federal prosecutors told a judge this week that Paul Manafort May have lied about “an extremely sensitive issue” in hopes of increasing the chances that he would be pardoned for his crimes, according to a transcript of the hearing unsealed Thursday.”

The exact issue was redacted.

”Mr Manafort’s interactions with Mr Kilimnick “goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating”, said Andrew Weissman, a prosecutor on Mr Mueller’s team.”

Later, the NYT article mentioned Mr Manafort’s scheme to use and hide the use of $125K of Trump PAC money to pay his legal bills.That information was still being kept secret — “a hint that a criminal inquiry is continuing.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phillysailor said:

“Federal prosecutors told a judge this week that Paul Manafort May have lied about “an extremely sensitive issue” in hopes of increasing the chances that he would be pardoned for his crimes, according to a transcript of the hearing unsealed Thursday.”

The exact issue was redacted.

”Mr Manafort’s interactions with Mr Kilimnick “goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating”, said Andrew Weissman, a prosecutor on Mr Mueller’s team.”

Later, the NYT article mentioned Mr Manafort’s scheme to use and hide the use of $125K of Trump PAC money to pay his legal bills.That information was still being kept secret — “a hint that a criminal inquiry is continuing.”

It may be that raid on Roger Stone's house yielded some juicy stuff. Looks like this is something they just found out.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grifter in Chief -

 

Trump’s Inaugural Grift Reportedly Lined His Own Pockets

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/trumps-inaugural-crimes-hotel-investigation.html

Excerpt -

Today ProPublica adds another key detail, confirming that the inauguration did pay the exorbitant $175,000 fee to the Trump Hotel. And it quotes tax law experts describing this as an obvious crime.

snip

Months before the election, the law said, the nominees of the two major parties were expected to prepare to take control of the government. The government supplied them with office space in downtown DC, along with computers and rubbish bins and so on, but the campaigns paid their people. To which Trump replied: Fuck the law. I don’t give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

Did Donald Trump personally direct the apparently illegal scheme to divert inaugural funds to enrich the Trump Organization? That remains to be proven, but the odds would seem to be fairly high that he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mark K said:

It may be that raid on Roger Stone's house yielded some juicy stuff. Looks like this is something they just found out.    

 

Dog said there was no evidence in the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had to do that to accommodate the record number of people who came to celebrate King Orange. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fakenews said:

Off topic but what became of Trumps military parade?

Did you miss it? It was SPECTACULAR! Biggest military parade ever! With the biggest tanks, the best generals, and all of the jets in the world! No one has ever seen a parade like this! It was HUGE! Even Lil' Rocket man, and the Iranians came to see it! They were so awed, they asked Trump to take over their countries, and take care of their people! They loved it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Off topic but what became of Trumps military parade?

It was deferred. It was just a spur of the moment thing anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

It was deferred. It was just a spur of the moment thing anyways.

Kinda like the draft deferment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Off topic but what became of Trumps military parade?

It was great. Trump was riding in a Ridgeline waving at the surfs. There was a guy with a toy cannon. And the finale was an F-35 flyby. It really was something to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bhyde said:

It was great. Trump was riding in a Ridgeline waving at the surfs. There was a guy with a toy cannon. And the finale was an F-35 flyby. It really was something to see.

I never heard the story about an F35 crashing in DC.  Must have covered it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I never heard the story about an F35 crashing in DC.  Must have covered it up.

They said the story was all a bunch of malarkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

Grifter in Chief -

 

Trump’s Inaugural Grift Reportedly Lined His Own Pockets

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/trumps-inaugural-crimes-hotel-investigation.html

Excerpt -

Today ProPublica adds another key detail, confirming that the inauguration did pay the exorbitant $175,000 fee to the Trump Hotel. And it quotes tax law experts describing this as an obvious crime.

snip

Months before the election, the law said, the nominees of the two major parties were expected to prepare to take control of the government. The government supplied them with office space in downtown DC, along with computers and rubbish bins and so on, but the campaigns paid their people. To which Trump replied: Fuck the law. I don’t give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

Did Donald Trump personally direct the apparently illegal scheme to divert inaugural funds to enrich the Trump Organization? That remains to be proven, but the odds would seem to be fairly high that he did.

That was $175,000 per day for event space  for the duration of the inauguration week.  Not counting suites for oil-soaked VIPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quintessential Trump quote.

Fuck the law. I don’t give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dog said:

"I'll happily start answering yours when you man up and start doing the same. I bet you won't make the same offer"....BS

That's for sure....I'd rather shoot myself in the head.

We're all well aware of how much you hate answering questions, Dog. That's the point. Thanks for proving it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

We're all well aware of how much you hate answering questions, Dog. That's the point. Thanks for proving it. 

“It’s not the actual answering of questions. It’s the possibility that someone might hold me to one of those answers that scares me.”

(likely Dog quote)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When The Party switches principles every ten minutes, supporters must avoid taking positions that will become inconvenient. The Flexible Canine has had that shit rubbed in his face enough times that he won’t make the mistake of taking a position ever again. And he doesn’t support Trump! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Dog said there was no evidence in the house.

A fair speculation. Roger has been in dirty business long enough to know how to erase files properly. 

 However it is also a fair speculation that he only erased things that he judged incriminating for himself alone. Things that might incriminate Paulie Manfort or some other person for perjury? He might not have been aware of precisely what Pauli was telling the feds. If I were in his shoes I'd of hesitated before erasing everything...that might be used as evidence of an attempt to destroy evidence. Not sure about that, I be guessin'. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

When The Party switches principles every ten minutes, supporters must avoid taking positions that will become inconvenient. The Flexible Canine has had that shit rubbed in his face enough times that he won’t make the mistake of taking a position ever again. And he doesn’t support Trump! 

This is why they rub their butts on the ground, even when they don't have worms...... Just to refresh the anal glands for the next round of butt sniffing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

The only question currently is who gets indicted next - smart money looks like Jr is up. 

Could be all the current directors of the Trump Org and the Trump Inauguration Commissary. All of them going down at once would really annoy Le Grand Orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Could be all the current directors of the Trump Org and the Trump Inauguration Commissary. All of them going down at once would really annoy Le Grand Orange.

Who were the directors of the Trump Inauguration Commisary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Who were the directors of the Trump Inauguration Commisary?

I don't know, but I'm sure Mueller knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dog said:

"I'll happily start answering yours when you man up and start doing the same. I bet you won't make the same offer"....BS

That's for sure....I'd rather shoot myself in the head.

What a cunt. You demand answers to questions, but refuse to answer any yourself. Tell's me all I need to know about you sock boy. Why don't you, Spreading Malarkey, J/28 and Not Guilty check into a cheap motel room. Between the bunch of you, you might find enough fingers for a Happy Jack off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lifted Tack said:

What a cunt. You demand answers to questions, but refuse to answer any yourself. Tell's me all I need to know about you sock boy. Why don't you, Spreading Malarkey, J/28 and Not Guilty check into a cheap motel room. Between the bunch of you, you might find enough fingers for a Happy Jack off.

Dog's not a sock. 

He is a longtime poster who, recently, has decided to defend the President from any and all criticism, while not supporting him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

The only question currently is who gets indicted next - smart money looks like Jr is up. 

My Money is Jarrod.

If its either you can be sure the twitter rant is gonna be thermonuclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:
13 hours ago, d'ranger said:

The only question currently is who gets indicted next - smart money looks like Jr is up. 

My Money is Jarrod.

If its either you can be sure the twitter rant is gonna be thermonuclear.

Come on.  As a criminal defense attorney, I don't want anyone to go down.  These two, don't push your luck daddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

My Money is Jarrod.

If its either you can be sure the twitter rant is gonna be thermonuclear.

And we thought that Trump couldn’t surpass himself on Twitter, that would set an new all time high in entertainment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would probably be incoherent.

Well..... even more than usual anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  20 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

My Money is Jarrod.

If its either you can be sure the twitter rant is gonna be thermonuclear.

And we thought that Trump couldn’t surpass himself on Twitter, that would set an new all time high in entertainment. 

This this little country.  I love it.  I don't hate.  I don't make exceptions.  I know he is hatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 8:57 PM, Olsonist said:

Officials rejected Jared Kushner for top secret security clearance, but were overruled

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/officials-rejected-jared-kushner-top-secret-security-clearance-were-overruled-n962221?cid=public-rss_20190125

At least we don't have Hillary.

According to Ivanka, her Daddy didn't intervene.

She made a funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff+Guy will be along shortly to complain about how Democrats don’t have a sense of humor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hasher said:

As a criminal defense attorney, I don't want anyone to go down. 

Yabut the defense lawyers who are not criminals do want the guilty to go down. With a proper defense, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Yabut the defense lawyers who are not criminals do want the guilty to go down. With a proper defense, of course.

No, I want the system to work.  No one should get railroaded.  If you don't have proof, go away.  I am trying not to brag, I know what I can win and what I can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, hasher said:

No, I want the system to work.  No one should get railroaded.  If you don't have proof, go away.  I am trying not to brag, I know what I can win and what I can't.

My ol pappy always mentioned that you can count on lawyers and chiropractors to make sure everyone knows what they do for a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:

My ol pappy always mentioned that you can count on lawyers and chiropractors to make sure everyone knows what they do for a living.

I have worked in factories.  Being a lawyer does not define me.  I am a sailor too.  Rather well, and I trained with my lady.  She is a keeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Reversing Obama administration policy (of flexibility) and selling weapons to Ukraine is just smoke then?

I can understand why you want to talk about anything but the contents of the article I linked.

Looks like Mr. Manafort's actions are a bit problematic for the folks who defend (while not supporting) the President, his family & friends, and his campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

I can understand why you want to talk about anything but the contents of the article I linked.

Looks like Mr. Manafort's actions are a bit problematic for the folks who defend (while not supporting) the President, his family & friends, and his campaign.

I was talking about the theory that Trump (and or associates) wanted to help Russia wrt Ukraine. I understand how not selling weapons to Ukraine helps Russia but it's unclear to me how selling weapons to Ukraine helps Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

I was talking about the theory that Trump (and or associates) wanted to help Russia wrt Ukraine. I understand how not selling weapons to Ukraine helps Russia but it's unclear to me how selling weapons to Ukraine helps Russia.

I guess you will just have to wait until Mr. Mueller issues his final report to make things clear.  Until then, feel free to label it a "fairy tale" and "fiction".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

I was talking about the theory that Trump (and or associates) wanted to help Russia wrt Ukraine. I understand how not selling weapons to Ukraine helps Russia but it's unclear to me how selling weapons to Ukraine helps Russia.

Were they selling defensive or offensive weapons to Ukraine, and was it before or after Russia had taken what they wanted? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hasher said:

I have worked in factories.  Being a lawyer does not define me.  I am a sailor too.  Rather well, and I trained with my lady.  She is a keeper.

Don't overlook what a great runner you are. Do you get that this is PA, not FB?

Before you answer earnestly, that was sarcasm. Just like my original post was.

Guessing yer pretty good on that trumpet too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:

Don't overlook what a great runner you are. Do you get that this is PA, not FB?

Before you answer earnestly, that was sarcasm. Just like my original post was.

Guessing yer pretty good on that trumpet too.

Yes  I run, slowly. No trumpets.  A piano now and then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

get a cabin you two.

(Hint, giving you an opportunity to out boat each other :rolleyes:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Reversing Obama administration policy (of flexibility) and selling weapons to Ukraine is just smoke then?

No, it's the same red herring you trot out whenever facts indicate that collusion is still a part of the FBI's investigation focus.

Collusion doesn't require that Trump does everything for the Russians. Hell, it doesn't require he does anything for them. It merely requires his campaign to have garnered favour &/or assistance from Russians in exchange for campaign officials promising future leniency in foreign policy. Trump not keeping those promises can merely mean he played them, not that there was no collusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

You do a lot of trumpeting here.

At least he's not into Trumpery like so many here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

I was talking about the theory that Trump (and or associates) wanted to help Russia wrt Ukraine. I understand how not selling weapons to Ukraine helps Russia but it's unclear to me how selling weapons to Ukraine helps Russia.

It's irrelevant to the lifting of economic sanctions on Russia, the suspected prime item in the quid pro quo for helping Trump get elected, so it's understandable for Putin to have signed off on it. They aren't worried about a few extra weapons changing the situation there, I suspect because Putin has no desire to re-take the western parts by military means. That side is culturally different from Russia, so different they actually fought with Hitler and still honor their fallen Nazis with statues. A few extra weapons in the hands of the guys still dreaming of taking Donbass? Sauce for the goose.  The more money they send out of country the weaker they become. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

It's irrelevant to the lifting of economic sanctions on Russia, the suspected prime item in the quid pro quo for helping Trump get elected, so it's understandable for Putin to have signed off on it. They aren't worried about a few extra weapons changing the situation there, I suspect because Putin has no desire to re-take the western parts by military means. That side is culturally different from Russia, so different they actually fought with Hitler and still honor their fallen Nazis with statues. A few extra weapons in the hands of the guys still dreaming of taking Donbass? Sauce for the goose.  The more money they send out of country the weaker they become. 

 

So you're suspecting a straight quid pro quo and not the Trump is a Russian puppet or is somehow compromised thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

No, it's the same red herring you trot out whenever facts indicate that collusion is still a part of the FBI's investigation focus.

Collusion doesn't require that Trump does everything for the Russians. Hell, it doesn't require he does anything for them. It merely requires his campaign to have garnered favour &/or assistance from Russians in exchange for campaign officials promising future leniency in foreign policy. Trump not keeping those promises can merely mean he played them, not that there was no collusion. 

I would hope that collusion would still be part of the investigation since it was how it was justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dog said:

I would hope that collusion would still be part of the investigation since it was how it was justified.

I don't think you have to worry. (of course we all realize collusion is not a legal term and you may never see that word in any report)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dog said:

I would hope that collusion would still be part of the investigation since it was how it was justified.

And yet you continue to trot out red herrings every time it is shown to still be an active focus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dog said:

collusion

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 4 - CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, AND SOLICITATION
§ 16-4-8 - Conspiracy to commit a crime

O.C.G.A. 16-4-8 (2010)
16-4-8. Conspiracy to commit a crime 


A person commits the offense of conspiracy to commit a crime when he together with one or more persons conspires to commit any crime and any one or more of such persons does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dog said:

I would hope that collusion would still be part of the investigation since it was how it was justified.

why do you lie? I don't see "collusion" mentioned in the charter....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Dog is worried about government wasting time and money and is anxious to see the payoff when the whole Trump family gets hauled off to jail? That HAS to be it :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

why do you lie? I don't see "collusion" mentioned in the charter....

"Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dog said:

"Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump".

and he has convictions of people who lied about those links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I don't think you have to worry. (of course we all realize collusion is not a legal term and you may never see that word in any report)

Well then he has deniable plausibility doesn't he?  After all, Rudy told us collusion isn't a crime......

Oh wait.  You say the investigation wasn't chartered under collusion?  Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I don't think there'll be a report,” John Dowd told ABC News in a wide-ranging interview for the premiere episode of "The Investigation," a new podcast focused on the probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller. “I will be shocked if anything regarding the president is made public, other than ‘We're done.’”

Damn.....If he turns out to be right there are a number of TDS afflicted posters here who probably shouldn't be left alone.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-lawyer-slams-mueller-probe-maintains-president-cleared/story?id=60967234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dog said:

“I don't think there'll be a report,” John Dowd told ABC News in a wide-ranging interview for the premiere episode of "The Investigation," a new podcast focused on the probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller. “I will be shocked if anything regarding the president is made public, other than ‘We're done.’”

Damn.....If he turns out to be right there are a number of TDS afflicted posters here who probably shouldn't be left alone.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-lawyer-slams-mueller-probe-maintains-president-cleared/story?id=60967234

Were "ifs" and "buts" candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

You have hung your hopes on a lost cause, I fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Were "ifs" and "buts" candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

You have hung your hopes on a lost cause, I fear.

I expect there are one or two who will demand the full report.  Perhaps even someone here wants to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hasher said:

I expect there are one or two who will demand the full report.  Perhaps even someone here wants to hear.

I expect that there will be a significant demand for the full report.  I also suspect that the full report touches on sources and methods that the Intel community, as well as the FBI may not wish to have disclosed, as that disclosure may negatively impact their ability to effect future prosecutions of other parties.  

My projection is that a redacted summary will be made available, and that people everywhere are going to complain about every facet of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I expect that there will be a significant demand for the full report.  I also suspect that the full report touches on sources and methods that the Intel community, as well as the FBI may not wish to have disclosed, as that disclosure may negatively impact their ability to effect future prosecutions of other parties.  

My projection is that a redacted summary will be made available, and that people everywhere are going to complain about every facet of it.  

I hope my elected representatives receive an unredacted version, even if just in committee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

I hope my elected representatives receive an unredacted version, even if just in committee. 

I think the appropriately cleared committees will, but, there are congress critters w/out high-level clearances or need to know, so I doubt that a full report will be made available to everyone in the house/senate outside committee.  I could be wrong, I'm just a guy with an opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Damn.....If he turns out to be right there are a number of TDS afflicted posters here who probably shouldn't be left alone.

And I suspect, if correct, there will be a few Trump "non-suppporters" who will claim that absent a report, Trump didn’t do anything. I bet at least one of them will be a "non-suppporter" that explicitly rejected a report clearing Hillary. 

That said, it's Dowd. It wouldn't be smart for. "non-suppporters" to hang their hopes on that guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think the appropriately cleared committees will, but, there are congress critters w/out high-level clearances or need to know, so I doubt that a full report will be made available to everyone in the house/senate outside committee.  I could be wrong, I'm just a guy with an opinion. 

The government likes to keep secrets.  Sometimes it protects all of us.  Trump has not released what the government knows about the Kennedy assassination.  That gives me pause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

“I don't think there'll be a report,” John Dowd told ABC News in a wide-ranging interview for the premiere episode of "The Investigation," a new podcast focused on the probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller. “I will be shocked if anything regarding the president is made public, other than ‘We're done.’”

Damn.....If he turns out to be right there are a number of TDS afflicted posters here who probably shouldn't be left alone.

Trump’s Lawyer Resigns as President Adopts Aggressive Approach in Russia Inquiry

I don't want to burst your bubble. Yes I do.  For the good of the country, we can do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Were "ifs" and "buts" candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

You have hung your hopes on a lost cause, I fear.

He says on page 159 apparently oblivious to the irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

He says on page 159 apparently oblivious to the irony.

As much as you find it fake news, I find that an ongoing very successful (as measured by convictions) investigation of the President’s team fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

He says on page 159 apparently oblivious to the irony.

I've been consistent in saying we should wait for Mr. Mueller to release his report before any declarations.

You've jumped the gun and declared it a "fairy tale" and "fiction".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

As much as you find it fake news, I find that an ongoing very successful (as measured by convictions) investigation of the President’s team fascinating.

I find it "refreshing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

My projection is that a redacted summary will be made available, and that people everywhere are going to complain about every facet of it.  

No kidding - the expectations of both sides will be impossible to meet.

Unless someone can figure a way of hanging a totally innocent and non-collusive man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

No kidding - the expectations of both sides will be impossible to meet.

Unless someone can figure a way of hanging a totally innocent and non-collusive man.

I would say the SDNY will have something to say,  particularly about innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Campaign Manager got body cavity searches before and after every court hearing.  Happened in every campaign.  They all thought it was a fairy tale.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites