Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

It was not my intention to imply you favor gerrymandering, and if I cam across that way - I apologize.

I was just wondering about your take on where the responsibility now lies - with the voters or the state courts.

Appreciate the clarification - and I hope my reply answered your question.  Ask away if not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States by themselves are a gerrymandering.

In related news, the Supremes ruled against the citizenship question and 'conservatives' are quite upset. Their boy Shitstain has asked to delay the Constitutionally mandated census because ... I don't really have a joke here. Shitstain asked to delay the Constitutionally mandated census.

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

Share this post


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

Appreciate the clarification - and I hope my reply answered your question.  Ask away if not. 

Given this decision, I agree the responsibility rests with the state courts.  I am just leery as to whether legislatures will abide that.

Witness North Carolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The best part about today's court ruling is 3 of those same conservatives - who say citizens can use nonpartisan commissions - were in the minority back in 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_Legislature_v._Arizona_Independent_Redistricting_Commission

it's like it's just situational bullshit for them.

 

Legal Realism: the jurisprudential school of thought that judges just do whatever the fuck they want, irrespective of law, precedent, etc. 

It is a small and cynical group of people who hold such beliefs...

and I count myself among them. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Legal Realism: the jurisprudential school of thought that judges just do whatever the fuck they want, irrespective of law, precedent, etc. 

It is a small and cynical group of people who hold such beliefs...

and I count myself among them. 

Yes. Those times when they cannot find a way to avoid answering the question they revert to crafting all-too-clever opinions. Scalia, for example, was an expert at wrapping utter bullshit in flamboyant false prose.

But much of the fault lies with congress and the voters being unwilling to resolve anything important. So it is left to the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

But much of the fault lies with congress and the voters being unwilling to resolve anything important. So it is left to the courts.

That's a lie the Conservative Court loves to peddle. It's more than happy to overrule the will of the voters when it's necessary to keep power vested in the best Americans. The judges don't do anything they want, they do what their masters want - just look at where Scalia died.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The last two indicate that you really aren't interested in fairness, or in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but, hey, that's how you roll.  I'll oppose that - and one of us might end up happy.  

1 acre 1 vote!

Share this post


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

I think you're wrong, and think I have a bit more faith in the average person than you do - but, that's why we discuss things, isn't it? 

What did you mean by post 20266 if not that you have little faith in improvement? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That's a lie the Conservative Court loves to peddle. It's more than happy to overrule the will of the voters when it's necessary to keep power vested in the best Americans. The judges don't do anything they want, they do what their masters want - just look at where Scalia died.

Scalia?  He was murdered by statists in the basement of a pizza parlor. This I can tell you belief me. Many people are saying it and they are saying it very strongly. 

Share this post


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

What did you mean by post 20266 if not that you have little faith in improvement? 

Its nuanced - I dont think we will see much change or improvement in the near term, but I think that our population is overall positive and resilient, and, like happened in the civil war,  prohibition, the great depression, the turmoil of the 60s, we will eventually get past this and be better off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scalia died in bed with a call girl while "Dove hunting"....

Let's not gild the fucking lily....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That's a lie the Conservative Court loves to peddle. It's more than happy to overrule the will of the voters when it's necessary to keep power vested in the best Americans. The judges don't do anything they want, they do what their masters want - just look at where Scalia died.

Like I wrote: The lawmakers and the people could do something about the big issues., e.g. abortion, guns, gerrymandering, immigration, executive overreach, even amend the constitution if the had any ambition. The people are sedated on Kadarshians. The lawmakers mostly goof around trying to hold onto power.

Amending the constitution...that document which controls the mental midgets on the court, has been amended for things of lesser import.

Amending the constitution would be a progressive thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, El Boracho said:

Amending the constitution would be a progressive thing.

3/4s of the states have to ratify it to successfully amend the constitution - it's the same tyranny of the minority that prevents anything from getting done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes. Those times when they cannot find a way to avoid answering the question they revert to crafting all-too-clever opinions. Scalia, for example, was an expert at wrapping utter bullshit in flamboyant false prose.

But much of the fault lies with congress and the voters being unwilling to resolve anything important. So it is left to the courts.

Justice Scalia loved his hunting trips into south Georgia and being one of the "boys".  The culture there believes Catholics are devil worshipers.  He went there on plantations.  This is life.  He was an intellectual?  He wanted the end.  He used his brain to do contortions to make right which is not right.  It gilded his life.

I doubt he had a moral bone in his body.  It was all ego.  Far too common.

Share this post


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

  It gilded his life.

:lol:

Share this post


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

:lol:

Scalia:  Gilded

His opinion amounts to this.

having a pleasing or showy appearance that conceals something of little worth.

Share this post


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

what are the odds president carter read mr mueller's report?

99-100%

 Carter's no dottering old fool. He could probably out debate anyone currently running for President on either side.

Share this post


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

what are the odds president carter read mr mueller's report?

More likely than Dog reading it.

Share this post


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

what are the odds president carter read mr mueller's report?

What do you think they are?

Mr Carter is a very intellectual man. Not so great as an executive but smart, raised to hard work, and BITD considered reading a couple thousand pages of briefing as preparation for the day. I'm sure he's slowed down a lot, but I'd be very surprised if he had not read it fully.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 10:24 AM, Olsonist said:

C Corps have been berry berry good to me (and are likely to be even more better) but they have no place in the body politic.

Treat guns like cars.

Voting and voting rights should be federalized.

Get rid of the Electoral College.

Small states should get relegated.

You can't treat guns like cars.The 2nd explicitly prohibits the Govt from interfering with  gun rights. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

What do you think they are?

Mr Carter is a very intellectual man. Not so great as an executive but smart, raised to hard work, and BITD considered reading a couple thousand pages of briefing as preparation for the day. I'm sure he's slowed down a lot, but I'd be very surprised if he had not read it fully.

-DSK

Carter was a fine executive and a finer man. It's just that people wanted an entertainer. So they hired an entertainer who told them that the era of big government is over and proceeded to take the United States from being the greatest creditor nation in history to the greatest debtor nation in history.

Fuck Reagan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The 2nd explicitly prohibits the Govt from interfering with  gun rights.

The conflicted turkey forgot the word "amendment" that's what it was- an amendment.

Think you might be ready for a 3rd,  now that the NRA is just another political arm of the fricking Russian government. 

One look at Putin yesterday and another closed door meet with donnie simply  confirms  for me it's a government actively interfering with American politics and my guess is Pee pee tapes are just the beginning of the pile of shit Donnies offered him on a plate,  while thinking with his dick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
17 hours ago, hermetic said:

what are the odds president carter read mr mueller's report?

What do you think they are?

Mr Carter is a very intellectual man. Not so great as an executive but smart, raised to hard work, and BITD considered reading a couple thousand pages of briefing as preparation for the day. I'm sure he's slowed down a lot, but I'd be very surprised if he had not read it fully.

probably.

after watching the show again (I should have read the article), the "investigation" he's referencing is one that would determine the effect russian interference had on the voter outcome - separate from the mueller led probe.  not sure how that investigation would work and prove his opinion.

i'll always remember president carter for motivating me to work as hard as I could to pay off the 21% college loans I had.

Share this post


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

probably.

after watching the show again (I should have read the article), the "investigation" he's referencing is one that would determine the effect russian interference had on the voter outcome - separate from the mueller led probe.  not sure how that investigation would work and prove his opinion.

i'll always remember president carter for motivating me to work as hard as I could to pay off the 21% college loans I had.

I remember him for having the bad judgement to pick a Secretary of State who was such a devoted pacifist that he could not abide the use of force, ever, in support of US interests. He did have the moral character to resign instead of playing manipulative games behind the scene, however. Also, the Secret Service apparently got Carter terrified of assassination attempts. I was kinda surprised he even wanted to run for reelection.

10 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Carter was a fine executive and a finer man. It's just that people wanted an entertainer. So they hired an entertainer who told them that the era of big government is over and proceeded to take the United States from being the greatest creditor nation in history to the greatest debtor nation in history.

Fuck Reagan.

Well, Carter was NOT a "fine executive." Of course, he wasn't really trained for that; but he didn't have the judgement nor the depth of understanding of human nature. It's to his credit that he consistently thinks the best of people but this left him unable to deal with snakes in the grass. He did not see the point in trying to persuade people (of course, he was not a politician or a salesman), just making decisions and decreeing that "this is the best way" does not work for large groups of people. Many of his decisions were the right ones in historical perspective IMHO but they all failed because he did not build any concensus.

Of course, not being a politician, he did nothing to build the Democratic Party's organization up. This is a common failing among Democrat Presidents, and one point that I feel the truly anti-big-government of the "conservatives" should appreciate. But generally they don't

Jimmy Carter is a fine man, I am proud of him as an American.  But in the end, the ability of an executive must be judged by the results.

-DSK

Share this post


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

Has all of the hallmarks of Pootin tidying up loose ends.

If I was Veselnitskaya I would be on a tea free diet.

Note to self:  Don't ride in helicopters if you are fading political operative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Note to self:  Don't ride in helicopters if you are fading political operative.

 

If Pootin can engineer a US election  what are the chances he could he get close to Marine One?

Hypothetically for a friend.:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Navig8tor said:
10 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Has all of the hallmarks of Pootin tidying up loose ends.

If I was Veselnitskaya I would be on a tea free diet.

Pooty-poot is a rank amateur when compared with Killary Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"that mean man took away our salt deduction scam.  this will teach him"

another useless law passed by a stupid ny state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 6:58 PM, warbird said:

You can't treat guns like cars.The 2nd explicitly prohibits the Govt from interfering with  gun rights. 

That is one of your most idiotic statements, ever.

The supremes have found that the 2nd is an individual right. The Supremes have also ruled that individual rights can be regulated. The simple fact is that firearms are regulated already. The debate is, what more, if anything, should be done to help staunch the flow of blood?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That is one of your most idiotic statements, ever.

The supremes have found that the 2nd is an individual right. The Supremes have also ruled that individual rights can be regulated. The simple fact is that firearms are regulated already. The debate is, what more, if anything, should be done to help staunch the flow of blood?

I believe you mean "stanch".

Share this post


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

I believe you mean "stanch".

I think you spelled 'stench' wrong.

Share this post


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

I believe you mean "stanch".

A lifetime of misuse of a word. Thanks teach.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

A lifetime of misuse of a word. Thanks teach.

It could've been intentional.

Stanch and Staunch. Although the two spellings are often seen used interchangeably, recommended modern usage is to distinguish between them: stanch: verb. to stop the flow of something, usually blood. staunch: adjective. (of persons) strong, standing firm and true to one's principles.

The debate is, what more, if anything, should be done to help staunch the flow of blood?

Share this post


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

It could've been intentional.

Stanch and Staunch. Although the two spellings are often seen used interchangeably, recommended modern usage is to distinguish between them: stanch: verb. to stop the flow of something, usually blood. staunch: adjective. (of persons) strong, standing firm and true to one's principles.

The debate is, what more, if anything, should be done to help staunch the flow of blood?

AH! A new T-shirt that will confuse the morans! "STANCH REPUBLICANS"

Never quit

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bus Driver said:
16 hours ago, Fakenews said:
18 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That can’t be right.  The Steele dossier was widely discredited.

Dog WTH?

Can we just label Dog's protestations a "fairy tale" and be done with it?

the ig hasn't leaked anything to date

i'll wait for the report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fakenews said:

That can’t be right.  The Steele dossier was widely discredited.

Dog WTH?

I gotta tell you, the next tweet (or utterance) by Trump will be that the emoluments clause is unconstitutional.  

We’ll see!

Drip drip drip....

Share this post


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

so is mueller getting grilled wed or fri?

Depends on how long they need to marinate that tough old bird.....

 My theory is that he will have a medical issue the night before, and need to be hospitalized, then recuperate before testifying..... It could be months. He's already made it clear that he wants nothing to do with this situation any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Depends on how long they need to marinate that tough old bird.....

 My theory is that he will have a medical issue the night before, and need to be hospitalized, then recuperate before testifying..... It could be months. He's already made it clear that he wants nothing to do with this situation any longer.

Can ya blame him?  He spent 2 years doing what was asked of him, with people on both sides making all kinds of spurious claims about his integrity, and since he published his findings, everyone wants to twist what he reported to suit their own agendas.   I'd be really tempted to tell everyone to STFU and leave me alone too. 

Share this post


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

Can ya blame him?  He spent 2 years doing what was asked of him, with people on both sides making all kinds of spurious claims about his integrity, and since he published his findings, everyone wants to twist what he reported to suit their own agendas.   I'd be really tempted to tell everyone to STFU and leave me alone too. 

I think it’s more about getting the story out to the general population. Very few regular folks read the report, but this will get TV coverage. Huge difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now there's a pile of new information about Assange's communications, contacts, and interactions with the GRU (KGB), and the Trump campaign..... I'm guessing this is why the hearing was delayed. Now that this is out in the public, maybe Mueller can say more than he could before......

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can ya blame him?  He spent 2 years doing what was asked of him, with people on both sides making all kinds of spurious claims about his integrity, and since he published his findings, everyone wants to twist what he reported to suit their own agendas.   I'd be really tempted to tell everyone to STFU and leave me alone too. 

Yeah, over two years he was paid ( I'm assuming ) fairly well from the public purse. After two years the report comes out and the conclusion is ambiguous enough that both sides can claim different conclusions and plenty of people are unclear on what the conclusion was. After that he doesn't really feel like explaining himself, I thought the guy was a public servant, paid by the public to let us know if the president was a naughty boy or not. I think a significant number of the public, even those who have read the report aren't really sure what the conclusion meant, therefore he hasn't finished yet. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, V21 said:

...therefore he hasn't finished yet. 

I'm good with that. Let him finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask Justin Amash if Mueller's conclusion was ambiguous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, V21 said:

Yeah, over two years he was paid ( I'm assuming ) fairly well from the public purse. After two years the report comes out and the conclusion is ambiguous enough that both sides can claim different conclusions and plenty of people are unclear on what the conclusion was. After that he doesn't really feel like explaining himself, I thought the guy was a public servant, paid by the public to let us know if the president was a naughty boy or not. I think a significant number of the public, even those who have read the report aren't really sure what the conclusion meant, therefore he hasn't finished yet. 

For people who read and understand English there is not much ambiguity about Trump's attempts to obstruct justice among other things. It was also stated that the under present circumstances he felt a sitting POTUS could not be charged. Certain news sources of course offer a different opinion. I prefer the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, V21 said:

Yeah, over two years he was paid ( I'm assuming ) fairly well from the public purse. After two years the report comes out and the conclusion is ambiguous enough that both sides can claim different conclusions and plenty of people are unclear on what the conclusion was. After that he doesn't really feel like explaining himself, I thought the guy was a public servant, paid by the public to let us know if the president was a naughty boy or not. I think a significant number of the public, even those who have read the report aren't really sure what the conclusion meant, therefore he hasn't finished yet. 

It was a double negative. "I am not saying the president is not a criminal". Well OK then.........

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

For people who read and understand English there is not much ambiguity about Trump's attempts to obstruct justice among other things. It was also stated that the under present circumstances he felt a sitting POTUS could not be charged. Certain news sources of course offer a different opinion. I prefer the facts.

I hear you , but there are plenty of people who can't or won't read the whole 400 page report. They might be too busy, not sufficiently literate, intelligent, maybe english isn't their first language. I guess my point is that we the people seemingly want further clarification we should get it because we paid him.

 

As for the conclusion that the POTUS can't be charged, when did he realize that bit right at the end or when he got started ? I feel like that could have been mentioned earlier.

 

Share this post


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

It was a double negative. "I am not saying the president is not a criminal". Well OK then.........

I might be wrong, but I didn't catch a conclusion that stated the "president committed X crime and here is the evidence" or "we found no evidence of a crime therefore he is innocent." I for one find that slightly ambiguous, I doubt I'm the only one so seeking clarification seems reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 12:16 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Then you aren't paying attention, I've said many times who I voted for - Mickey Mouse. 

Bad things happen when good men vote for someone not on the ballot....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, V21 said:

I hear you , but there are plenty of people who can't or won't read the whole 400 page report. They might be too busy, not sufficiently literate, intelligent, maybe english isn't their first language. I guess my point is that we the people seemingly want further clarification we should get it because we paid him.

 

As for the conclusion that the POTUS can't be charged, when did he realize that bit right at the end or when he got started ? I feel like that could have been mentioned earlier.

 

There are a number of excellent summaries - Cliff Notes if you will.

As to the not being indicted,  GIYF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, V21 said:

I hear you , but there are plenty of people who can't or won't read the whole 400 page report. They might be too busy, not sufficiently literate, intelligent, maybe english isn't their first language. I guess my point is that we the people seemingly want further clarification we should get it because we paid him.

 

As for the conclusion that the POTUS can't be charged, when did he realize that bit right at the end or when he got started ? I feel like that could have been mentioned earlier.

 

You do know the target of the investigation was Russian interference and possible campaign coordination, right? The president was not named in the charter. And Mueller caught a bunch of scurrying cockroaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, V21 said:

I might be wrong, but I didn't catch a conclusion that stated the "president committed X crime and here is the evidence" or "we found no evidence of a crime therefore he is innocent." I for one find that slightly ambiguous, I doubt I'm the only one so seeking clarification seems reasonable.

Nope, he said “we can’t indict, but congress can and here are 12 crimes”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, d'ranger said:

There are a number of excellent summaries - Cliff Notes if you will.

As to the not being indicted,  GIYF

Right, but given that this is important, and that there are a huge number of citizens that get their information in all manner of formats and from many different sources. one more set off cliff notes, straight from Mueller, on TV seems like it might clear things up a bit for a lot of people.

Share this post


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

You do know the target of the investigation was Russian interference and possible campaign coordination, right? The president was not named in the charter. And Mueller caught a bunch of scurrying cockroaches.

Yeah, but it's easy to forget that, I guess because there is some inherent disappointment that the day after the report came out Trump wasn't in an orange jumpsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Welcome to Congress, Robert Mueller.

We’ve got questions for you.

But before we begin, the most important questions are for House Republicans.

Why are you so upset about having Mr. Mueller here?

President Trump says the Mueller report cleared him, so why don’t you want to hear from its author?

...

And you all know that your fellow conservative, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, took the time to read the Mueller report. He concluded it was time to begin impeachment proceedings.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/452993-juan-williams-gop-in-a-panic-over-mueller

He's right, but unfortunately there are too many people who cannot read or be bothered to do so.  The GOP Bumper Nutz coalition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now set for the 24th, with an hour added before each committee so that each member gets a chance to ask a stupid question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, V21 said:

Yeah, but it's easy to forget that, I guess because there is some inherent disappointment that the day after the report came out Trump wasn't in an orange jumpsuit.

I (for one) would hate to see that. It would clash terribly with his hair

- DSK

Share this post


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

I (for one) would hate to see that. It would clash terribly with his hair

- DSK

I've noticed that they've started going light on the hair dye lately..... It's no longer Donald McRonald orange..... Just a slightly tangerine spritz in the platinum gray.

Share this post


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

now set for the 24th, with an hour added before each committee so that each member gets a chance to ask a stupid question.

Ignorance to a large degree has been your choice.  Revel in it like a dog that takes a shit and rolls in it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:
22 hours ago, hermetic said:

now set for the 24th, with an hour added before each committee so that each member gets a chance to ask a stupid question.

Ignorance to a large degree has been your choice.  Revel in it like a dog that takes a shit and rolls in it.  

your child like belief in congress is touching

who do you think will come out looking better - a bunch of rabid politicians in full election mode, or the guy that took down gotti?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious, but not sure how deep the "government" went on this.

If Barr had his hands in it we know where it's going.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Curious, but not sure how deep the "government" went on this.

If Barr had his hands in it we know where it's going.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York's Best Fixer must feel pretty dumb about pleading guilty now....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminal contempt that is.......

House Holds Barr and Ross in Contempt Over Census Dispute

Excerpt -

Wednesday’s contempt vote formally authorized the Oversight Committee to take Mr. Barr and Mr. Ross to federal court to seek judicial enforcement of subpoenas for the material in question. A lawsuit is expected in the coming weeks, and the administration has maintained it is on firm legal footing in its position.

It also leveled a stinging personal rebuke to Mr. Barr and Mr. Ross by formally referring them to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. There is no real risk the department will pursue the case — Mr. Barr is the head of the Justice Department — but only once before has Congress held in contempt a sitting member of a presidential cabinet: Eric H. Holder Jr., President Barack Obama’s first attorney general.

Share this post


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

Criminal contempt that is.......

House Holds Barr and Ross in Contempt Over Census Dispute

Excerpt -

Wednesday’s contempt vote formally authorized the Oversight Committee to take Mr. Barr and Mr. Ross to federal court to seek judicial enforcement of subpoenas for the material in question. A lawsuit is expected in the coming weeks, and the administration has maintained it is on firm legal footing in its position.

It also leveled a stinging personal rebuke to Mr. Barr and Mr. Ross by formally referring them to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. There is no real risk the department will pursue the case — Mr. Barr is the head of the Justice Department — but only once before has Congress held in contempt a sitting member of a presidential cabinet: Eric H. Holder Jr., President Barack Obama’s first attorney general.

But he was from another nationality.... Not a real American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

But he was from another nationality.... Not a real American.

We can’t be sure can we? Did he show his original long form birth certificate?  

Share this post


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

We can’t be sure can we? Did he show his original long form birth certificate?  

Not that I saw..... Did you?

Share this post


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

We can’t be sure can we? Did he show his original long form birth certificate?  

There may have been layers.  Those do present interesting questions, no?

Share this post


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

There may have been layers.  Those do present interesting questions, no?

Layers of liars and lawyers. This is good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:
15 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

There may have been layers.  Those do present interesting questions, no?

Layers of liars and lawyers. This is good stuff.

Not quite what I was going for.

But, I don't disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, an unwilling Mueller will be made to appear Wednesday before two committees, and to what end?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

The Report “is” his testimony, he’s told us that.  And the report has been public for months, and summarized for non-readers or too-lazy-to-be-bothered-readers (some of whom are in Congress?) by numerous summarizers, pundits, even acting troupes.  Those who care to read it have read it.

So who and what are the committees aiming at?  Civic recluses? Themselves in the mirror? A mythical piñata they’re convinced, or at least hoping, is real?  Glowing reviews of their speechifying sound-bites (oh wait, questions, sorry) from CNN or Fox, respectively?  Making old news appear shiny and new?

I’m not expecting much, aside from the usual media overreaction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've heard that your report completely exonerates the President.  Can you tell us how you reached that conclusion and why it was not expressed with greater clarity in the report? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 10:27 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - you don't think that it's appropriate for the citizens of a state to decide their own laws?   There's nothing that I'm aware of that prevents you from going anywhere ya want as a citizen of the US - but, your position seems to disregard the consideration of local priorities and concerns.  What's important for you in Oakland might not mean much to me in the Shenandoah Valley, and similarly, some of the things we care about here probably mean little to you.  I don't see that as a bad thing - why do you? 

Not to answer for someone else, but why should someone in Nebraska have 3-12 times the eyesight in the single, national election we have?

(or I could just point your your erroneous false equivalency)

Share this post


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

Don't forget the No Collusion Conclusion. 

Oh there are a ton of ways to ask things about the report that are not in the report.  I just picked one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure someone is going to ask that if anyone else had acted to obstruct the investigation in the way Trump did if he would have recommended the case for prosecution.

 Call it a hunch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller will say that what he said, is what he meant...... Sigh..... And that is all he has to say about that.

Share this post


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

okay, an unwilling Mueller will be made to appear Wednesday before two committees, and to what end?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

The Report “is” his testimony, he’s told us that.  And the report has been public for months, and summarized for non-readers or too-lazy-to-be-bothered-readers (some of whom are in Congress?) by numerous summarizers, pundits, even acting troupes.  Those who care to read it have read it.

So who and what are the committees aiming at?  Civic recluses? Themselves in the mirror? A mythical piñata they’re convinced, or at least hoping, is real?  Glowing reviews of their speechifying sound-bites (oh wait, questions, sorry) from CNN or Fox, respectively?  Making old news appear shiny and new?

I’m not expecting much, aside from the usual media overreaction.  

To create news coverage of the report's actual contents, in an effort to counter all the lies told about its contents.

Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites