Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, saxdog said:

Desantis is despicable.

He’s done some things that I really like and had a great start. This should prove to be an interesting issue. Open government (Government in the Sunshine) is in the state constitution here. My guess is that by now there have been any number of records requests for that information, to be followed by a suit from the First Amendment Foundation in short order. 

Share this post


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

No, I don't believe it is weird...Do you agree with BS that an independent counsel who believes that a president has committed crimes cannot include that conclusion in his confidential report back to the AG?

Educate yourself. I’ve wasted enough on you already. You’re not interested in traditions, the law or truth. You’re just trolling.

Share this post


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

No, I don't believe it is weird...Do you agree with BS that an independent counsel who believes that a president has committed crimes cannot include that conclusion in his confidential report back to the AG?

Yes, because that's what he wrote.

Share this post


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

He’s done some things that I really like and had a great start. This should prove to be an interesting issue. Open government (Government in the Sunshine) is in the state constitution here. My guess is that by now there have been any number of records requests for that information, to be followed by a suit from the First Amendment Foundation in short order. 

Sorry, DeSantis doesn't get a pass from me on burying information concerning where elections were hacked in Florida. I'm not a Floridian so I haven't seen his positive side. Hopefully he's better than his stupid campaign ads. GA's governor is proving himself to be an even bigger jerk than he was in his campaign ads. 

Share this post


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

Sorry, DeSantis doesn't get a pass from me on burying information concerning where elections were hacked in Florida. I'm not a Floridian so I haven't seen his positive side. Hopefully he's better than his stupid campaign ads. GA's governor is proving himself to be an even bigger jerk than he was in his campaign ads. 

He gets no pass from me on that either.  That is a telltale sign that it wasn't any of the American counties that were involved, it was probably democRAT counties like Dade and Broward.  The fun thing about public records here is that the govt gets to pay attorneys fees when they wrongfully deny access to records.  That information will be public.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Yes, because that's what he wrote.

And others disagree with Mueller's interpretation.  Does it make sense to you that DOJ policy would prohibit an INDEPENDENT counsel from drawing one of the two possible conclusions wrt whether a president committed a crime?

Share this post


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

And others disagree with Mueller's interpretation.  Does it make sense to you that DOJ policy would prohibit an INDEPENDENT counsel from drawing one of the two possible conclusions wrt whether a president committed a crime?

Does it make sense? No, but that's because I don't follow the notion of the unitary executive. Our DOJ, however, does follow that notion, so in that context, it DOES make sense.

I wonder why Trump wont let Mueller be interviewed by the house, probably because they would ask this question?

Share this post


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

Does it make sense? No, but that's because I don't follow the notion of the unitary executive. Our DOJ, however, does follow that notion, so in that context, it DOES make sense.

I wonder why Trump wont let Mueller be interviewed by the house, probably because they would ask this question?

In fact the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted is disputed.

Share this post


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

Sorry, DeSantis doesn't get a pass from me on burying information concerning where elections were hacked in Florida. I'm not a Floridian so I haven't seen his positive side. Hopefully he's better than his stupid campaign ads. GA's governor is proving himself to be an even bigger jerk than he was in his campaign ads. 

aaaand it could be more than two. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/16/723996207/possible-more-counties-than-now-known-were-hacked-in-2016-fla-delegation-says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Move along people.There's nothing to see here. It's just some Ruskies changing your votes to the right party.

Share this post


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

And others disagree with Mueller's interpretation.  Does it make sense to you that DOJ policy would prohibit an INDEPENDENT counsel from drawing one of the two possible conclusions wrt whether a president committed a crime?

It doesn't matter who disagrees with his interpretation. What matters is Mueller was the person in charge of the investigation, in charge of what was concluded in the document, and in charge of which policies would be followed and how. He stated that he couldn't conclude a sitting president committed a crime because of the DOJ policy against indicting said president regardless of what he found. The report was written by him and therefore, regardless of how much you disagree with it, his lack of concluding Trump committed crimes means nothing at all. 

Share this post


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

In fact the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted is disputed.

It doesn't matter that it's disputed. It matters that it is current policy, that Mueller believed that policy to mean he couldn't conclude a sitting president committed a crime, and that the report was based on that understanding. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muttski will be along shortly to say that there were no collusion convictions which completely exonerates his boy Shitstain. Guy will be concerned but optimistic. Tom will cite National Socialist Party of America vs Skokie but we’re not sure why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flynn..............

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a great day for America! Senate Republicans have confirmed Wendy Vitter, to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. Wendy thinks abortion causes cancer; I'm sure she will make Americans proud.

 

Share this post


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

It doesn't matter that it's disputed. It matters that it is current policy, that Mueller believed that policy to mean he couldn't conclude a sitting president committed a crime, and that the report was based on that understanding. 

That it's current policy is disputed. Recall the reaction to Rudy when he claimed the president was immunised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Muttski will be along shortly to say that there were no collusion convictions which completely exonerates his boy Shitstain. Guy will be concerned but optimistic. Tom will cite National Socialist Party of America vs Skokie but we’re not sure why.

Exoneration from what?

Share this post


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

It doesn't matter who disagrees with his interpretation. What matters is Mueller was the person in charge of the investigation, in charge of what was concluded in the document, and in charge of which policies would be followed and how. He stated that he couldn't conclude a sitting president committed a crime because of the DOJ policy against indicting said president regardless of what he found. The report was written by him and therefore, regardless of how much you disagree with it, his lack of concluding Trump committed crimes means nothing at all. 

Obviously Mueller's opinion is what matters wrt his report but that doesn't mean others can't, and in fact do, disagree. I think Mueller could have offered  legal conclusions and left it to the AG to sort out the DOJ policy implications. I also disagree with you that "his lack of concluding Trump committed crimes means nothing at all", that was actually quite consequential.

But beyond Mueller it's an interesting question... Is it better for the country to have an indicted president or an immunized president. I'll go with the indicted president.

 

Share this post


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

That it's current policy is disputed. Recall the reaction to Rudy when he claimed the president was immunised.

The DOJ doesn't dispute it. Neither does Mueller. That others do doesn't matter when analysing the report given Mueller has explicitly stated that is a policy he understands to be in force.

Share this post


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

The DOJ doesn't dispute it. Neither does Mueller. That others do doesn't matter when analysing the report given Mueller has explicitly stated that is a policy he understands to be in force.

Actually I think Barr (read DOJ) was expecting conclusions.

Share this post


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

Obviously Mueller's opinion is what matters wrt his report but that doesn't mean others can't, and in fact do, disagree.

And yet that disagreement means nothing.

 

1 minute ago, Dog said:

I think Mueller could have offered  legal conclusions and left it to the AG to sort out the DOJ policy implications. I also disagree that "his lack of concluding Trump committed crimes means nothing at all", that was actually quite consequential.

If you'd read the report, you'd know why he didn't do that and why you are wrong about the inconsequentialism of his lack of conclusion given it explicitly states Trump is not exonerated by the findings. 

 

Share this post


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

Actually I think Barr (read DOJ) was expecting conclusions.

Barr is not the DOJ, did not set the policies governing the DOJ, nor set the bounds of DOJ employees when it comes to the sitting president. I think you're wrong and, unlike you, have actually read the report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog, c'mere boy, c'mon, good boy, quit humping my sofa.  

Dog, 

How would a democratically controlled Congress reacted to Mueller's report?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And yet that disagreement means nothing.

 

If you'd read the report, you'd know why he didn't do that and why you are wrong about the inconsequentialism of his lack of conclusion given it explicitly states Trump is not exonerated by the findings. 

 

"Exonerated from findings"? One does not need exoneration from findings.

Share this post


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

Dog, c'mere boy, c'mon, good boy, quit humping my sofa.  

Dog, 

How would a democratically controlled Congress reacted to Mueller's report?  

If members felt there it constituted grounds for impeachment / removal they would propose it and vote on it.

Share this post


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

"Exonerated from findings"? One does not need exoneration from findings.

I didn't say "exonerated from findings". You are making shit up, Dog. Stop doing that or I'm going to have to smack you with the newspaper again.

Share this post


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

If members felt there it constituted grounds for impeachment / removal and didn't know that partisan loyalty would make the effort futile they would propose it and vote on it.

FIFY

Share this post


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

Exoneration from what?

If it's complete exoneration, does that really matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From “The Hill”:  Prosecutors have unsealed new details in the case involving former national security adviser Michael Flynn, revealing that he provided information to special counsel Robert Mueller relevant to his obstruction inquiry.

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” the filing states.

Looks & sounds like obstruction. @Doggy, what would that smell like if dropped by a DemocRAT?  Push your nose in and sniff... 

Share this post


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

From “The Hill”:  Prosecutors have unsealed new details in the case involving former national security adviser Michael Flynn, revealing that he provided information to special counsel Robert Mueller relevant to his obstruction inquiry.

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” the filing states.

Looks & sounds like obstruction. @Doggy, what would that smell like if dropped by a DemocRAT?  Push your nose in and sniff... 

The transcript of the voicemail he turned over must be made public by May 31. 

Share this post


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

Obviously Mueller's opinion is what matters wrt his report but that doesn't mean others can't, and in fact do, disagree. I think Mueller could have offered  legal conclusions and left it to the AG to sort out the DOJ policy implications. I also disagree with you that "his lack of concluding Trump committed crimes means nothing at all", that was actually quite consequential.

But beyond Mueller it's an interesting question... Is it better for the country to have an indicted president or an immunized president. I'll go with the indicted president.

 

Wait, so now you disagree with the theory of the unitary exec? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

What a great day for America! Senate Republicans have confirmed Wendy Vitter, to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. Wendy thinks abortion causes cancer; I'm sure she will make Americans proud.

 

This is red letter day for the Junior Anti-Science League aka The GOP.

Share this post


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

From “The Hill”:  Prosecutors have unsealed new details in the case involving former national security adviser Michael Flynn, revealing that he provided information to special counsel Robert Mueller relevant to his obstruction inquiry.

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” the filing states.

Looks & sounds like obstruction. @Doggy, what would that smell like if dropped by a DemocRAT?  Push your nose in and sniff... 

Obstruction by who and of what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's every man for himself....

"This real-life feud over what’s often referred to as “spygate” concerns the infamous Steele dossier. The question everybody wants to be answered is “whodunit,” i.e., which one of these two disgraced officials was responsible for elevating the fraudulent, smear-filled document into undeserved relevance".

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/05/16/both-stories-cant-be-true-spygate-begins-to-unravel-as-brennan-vs-comey-camps-point-fingers-755017

Share this post


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

It's every man for himself....

"This real-life feud over what’s often referred to as “spygate” concerns the infamous Steele dossier. The question everybody wants to be answered is “whodunit,” i.e., which one of these two disgraced officials was responsible for elevating the fraudulent, smear-filled document into undeserved relevance".

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/05/16/both-stories-cant-be-true-spygate-begins-to-unravel-as-brennan-vs-comey-camps-point-fingers-755017

Gosh, that reads like a breathless romance novel! How exciting, yet completely unlike responsible journalism.

The FBI does not “spy”. It investigates. Glad we got that cleared up.

Share this post


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

Gosh, that reads like a breathless romance novel! How exciting, yet completely unlike responsible journalism.

The FBI does not “spy”. It investigates. Glad we got that cleared up.

Don't be duped by semantics, of course the FBI spies...

Spy: " Work for a government or other organization by secretly obtaining information about enemies or competitors".

BTW...You didn't answer my question.

Share this post


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

Spy: " Work for a government or other organization by secretly obtaining information about enemies or competitors".

Who is the enemy? Or, who is the FBI’s competitor?

Share this post


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

Don't be duped by semantics, of course the FBI spies...

Spy: " Work for a government or other organization by secretly obtaining information about enemies or competitors".

BTW...You didn't answer my question.

And you didn’t answer mine. Have you changed your mind on the theory of the unitary executive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
24 minutes ago, Dog said:

Don't be duped by semantics, of course the FBI spies...

Spy: " Work for a government or other organization by secretly obtaining information about enemies or competitors".

BTW...You didn't answer my question.

And you didn’t answer mine. Have you changed your mind on the theory of the unitary executive?

I don't think he has a theory on that, his main principle is "Spying is -good- when Republicans do it" or lying or stealing or a number of other Bad-When-Other-People-Do-It activities. Just like it used to be V.P. Cheney's motto "Torture is good when Republicans do it."

-DSK

Share this post


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

Obstruction by who and of what?

Obstruction by Trump of justice. Go read the fucking report.

Share this post


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

Obstruction by Trump of justice. Go read the fucking report.

Fat chance of that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

But, Flynn wasn’t the campaign!

 

(likely @Dog deflection)

Judge was a Clinton appointee, therefore, we need to investigate the judge.

Share this post


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

Obstruction by who and of what?

Guess you're not interested in writing this correctly. Lemme know if you are. Were al hear fer yu.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Guess you're not interested in writing this correctly. Lemme know if you are. Were al hear fer yu.

Not all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Policy by Russian bot farms.  Splendid.  

Splendid?  Hedy Lamaar, is that you?  (I hate being your setup guy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Policy by Russian bot farms.  Splendid.  

That was covered in the Mueller report. The Shitstain campaign would regularly retweet @TEN_GOP. As if someone from Tennessee would misspell its abbreviation. Seriously.

Share this post


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

Splendid?  Hedy Lamaar, is that you?  (I hate being your setup guy)

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

But, Flynn wasn’t the campaign!

 

(likely @Dog deflection)

Ive heard this one on this forum:

Flynn broke the law after the election. The investigation was about the election.

Followed with whataboutism wrt Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, another 505 sailor said:

Ive heard this one on this forum:

Flynn broke the law after the election. The investigation was about the election.

Followed with whataboutism wrt Obama.

Flynn’s congressional buddy was none other than Matt Gaetz. 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/444374-gop-mueller-critic-says-flynn-contacted-him-during-special-counsel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Gaetz is also under investigation by the Florida bar for witness tampering with Cohen. I guess you can only get disbarred once. Like our Duncan Hunter, he could shoot someone in broad daylight and still get re-elected. He wouldn't even get primaried.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Matt Gaetz is also under investigation by the Florida bar for witness tampering with Cohen. I guess you can only get disbarred once. Like our Duncan Hunter, he could shoot someone in broad daylight and still get re-elected. He wouldn't even get primaried.

I am ashamed to be in the same Bar as that bullshitting thug, and I am quite likely not alone in that sentiment. The Fl Bar does not fuck around. They do not trade in conspiracy theories or public opinion polls. They deal with facts, law and rules. 

Rep. Gaetz does not need to be a member of the Bar. His approval would probably go up if he were not a lawyer, as long as he still peddles in hate and bullshit. If the Bar case doesn’t flame out, I expect him to resign before they can kick him out. 

Edit: I also read something about him moving to Alabama to take on Doug Jones. I encourage that. MFGA. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I am ashamed to be in the same Bar as that bullshitting thug, and I am quite likely not alone in that sentiment. The Fl Bar does not fuck around. They do not trade in conspiracy theories or public opinion polls. They deal with facts, law and rules. 

Rep. Gaetz does not need to be a member of the Bar. His approval would probably go up if he were not a lawyer, as long as he still peddles in hate and bullshit. If the Bar case doesn’t flame out, I expect him to resign before they can kick him out. 

Edit: I also read something about him moving to Alabama to take on Doug Jones. I encourage that. MFGA. 

The question becomes how far can a turd float?

Share this post


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

The question becomes how far can a turd float?

The panhandle of FL is known as LA...Lower Alabama. From his district he can float north or west and get far enough in a short time. He can float farther if he heads south. As long as he doesn’t head east. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The panhandle of FL is known as LA...Lower Alabama. From his district he can float north or west and get far enough in a short time. He can float farther if he heads south. As long as he doesn’t head east. 

Lived  in Oakland Park Ft Liquerdale, 10 years,  I know a turd floatin over there is gonna scoot straight past Ft Myers,  Key West and into the gulf stream, he might wash  up at Cape Hatteras otherwise its a long way to the Azores by which point he can hopefully dissolve.

Share this post


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

The Gold mine of criminal activity by the Trump clan engaged in with Deutschle Bank’s help  hasn’t been released yet but bits continue to emerge thanks to patriotic leakers.  

This bit involves Kushner.

https://thinkprogress.org/deutsche-bank-staff-suspicious-transfers-jared-kushner-companies-russians-9a953b24a49f/

Gosh! Imagine that?!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the money is going to open up the can of worms that are the various Trump entities.

Putting a timeline against the dubious dealings will reveal that it was only ever about the money.

Be ironic if Jarrad ended up in the same jail cell that his daddy was in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the original NY Times piece -

Deutsche Bank Staff Saw Suspicious Activity in Trump and Kushner Accounts

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html

Excerpt -

“The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump’s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity… Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.”

“But executives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees’ advice. The reports were never filed with the government.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Sean said:

This from the original NY Times piece -

Deutsche Bank Staff Saw Suspicious Activity in Trump and Kushner Accounts

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html

Excerpt -

“The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump’s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity… Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.”

“But executives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees’ advice. The reports were never filed with the government.”

 

 

Share this post


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

 

 

Good thing rich white guys don’t get special treatment...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 9:43 PM, Bus Driver said:

A perfect example of just how much of a bad reality show this shitshow is.

I can just imagine how the Faithful would've lost their collective shit if it happened under President Obama.

Please...This is the same media that convinced you to believe in fairy tales, they have no credibility. In the words of Matt Tiabbi...

"Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 8:10 AM, phillysailor said:

From “The Hill”:  Prosecutors have unsealed new details in the case involving former national security adviser Michael Flynn, revealing that he provided information to special counsel Robert Mueller relevant to his obstruction inquiry.

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” the filing states.

Looks & sounds like obstruction. @Doggy, what would that smell like if dropped by a DemocRAT?  Push your nose in and sniff... 

Anyone who actually did read the report would have already known about this.

Share this post


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

Anyone who actually did read the report would have already known about this.

Oh, so you did know the president committed obstruction? Because that is exactly what is detailed here.

good to know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Oh, so you did know the president committed obstruction? Because that is exactly what is detailed here.

good to know

No it's not.

Share this post


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

Please...This is the same media that convinced you to believe in fairy tales, they have no credibility. In the words of Matt Tiabbi...

"Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media".

So, let me make sure I've got this straight...... a guy who makes his living repeating yay-TeamR! lies is saying that the fact that he's back today telling something that has a slight sniff of the actual truth means that the whole "news media" (of which he is nominally a part) has lost it's reputation?

-DSK

Share this post


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

Anyone who actually did read the report would have already known about this.

Have you read it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, let me make sure I've got this straight...... a guy who makes his living repeating yay-TeamR! lies is saying that the fact that he's back today telling something that has a slight sniff of the actual truth means that the whole "news media" (of which he is nominally a part) has lost it's reputation?

-DSK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi

Share this post


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

Have you read it?

No, I have not...Apparently a lot of people are pretending to have read it.

Share this post


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

No, I have not...Apparently a lot of people are pretending to have read it.

This guy read it -·

 
 

Share this post


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

Oh, so you did know the president committed obstruction? Because that is exactly what is detailed here.

good to know

No it's not.

From The Hill: The report states that, after Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with Trump and began cooperating with the investigation, “the President's personal counsel left a message for Flynn's attorneys reminding them of the President's warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said ‘still remains,’ and asking for a ‘heads up’ if Flynn knew 'information that implicates the President.'"

“When Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn's actions reflected ‘hostility’ towards the President,” the report states.

 

So, Dog, you are saying that these communications are the gold standard to which future administrations should attain? Future presidents and their lawyers should reach out to influence witnesses and encourage revealing their testimony, and later send threatening types of messages after legal maneuvers separate defense claims. 

Good to know that such communications will be acceptable when performed by a Democratic President, or a Muslim Representative, or a mob boss. All deserve the same lax implementation of silly obstruction laws. In fact, we should authorize mayors and governors to fire anyone investigating them, and to appoint political hacks to review and announce the findings of any investigations. 

Why don’t we go full banana republic, and just pack the courts with judges who fail the ABA approval process for partisan gain, and make elections irrelevant through political chicanery like gerrymandering, illegal voting purges and by manipulating the census.

MAGA, baby

Share this post


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

No, I have not...Apparently a lot of people are pretending to have read it.

Many people are saying it. Without reading it, they are as full of shit as you. 

Share this post


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

mueller is going to face some tough questions

Nope. He will not testify...at least not willingly. No way will he let his name and reputation be dragged through the shitter by the Pride of NY and his minions. 

Share this post


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

Many people are saying it. Without reading it, they are as full of shit as you. 

Drip drip drip...speaking of full of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's any consolation, many people that don't actually read the bible like to quote from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mike G said:

If it's any consolation, many people that don't actually read the bible like to quote from it.

This one is big for one of our furry friends -

“Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18)

Share this post


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

Nope. He will not testify...at least not willingly. No way will he let his name and reputation be dragged through the shitter by the Pride of NY and his minions. 

That would be a travesty.   He doesn't need a circus, but he has to at least talk to the clowns, even if it's behind closed doors.

Share this post


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

mueller is going to face some tough questions

Really?

Do you think he'll plead the 5th?

Do you think he'll turn Democrat?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

That would be a travesty.   He doesn't need a circus, but he has to at least talk to the clowns, even if it's behind closed doors.

Behind closed doors would be meaningless, because we would end up with a released version of his testimony written by/for people like Dog. It would have only tangential relationship to his actual testimony, just like the Barr summary. 

He knows that if he tells the story in public, he and his family will be trashed by the Most Innocent Man in the GOP and his crew.  At this stage of his career, he won't want that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Behind closed doors would be meaningless, because we would end up with a released version of his testimony written by/for people like Dog. It would have only tangential relationship to his actual testimony, just like the Barr summary. 

He knows that if he tells the story in public, he and his family will be trashed by the Most Innocent Man in the GOP and his crew.  At this stage of his career, he won't want that.  

Drip drip drip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
3 hours ago, hermetic said:

mueller is going to face some tough questions

Really?

Do you think he'll plead the 5th?

Do you think he'll turn Democrat?

the two tough questions he'll face are:

- if trump were not president, would you have indicted him for obstruction

- why did you not conclude that trump committed obstruction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites