Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yeah, I pretty much was right.

 

12 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

anytime there’s a hard question- like the one sol asked, just now  you dance away like a fucking cowardly bullshitter because you know you are bullshitting and you’d rather troll.

So am I.

you’d rather be a gossipy bitch dog, it’s ok, you’ve got nothing.

like trump the lesson you’ve learned is you don’t even have to pretend anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 10:08 PM, Cal20sailor said:

I don't know.  I really think he was programmed by an overpowering father to think dems/libs are all bad and he did not have the tools/skills/resources to address it.  He was never in combat but did have the military existence.  I just wish he would quit posting what anyone with a resting pulse knows is false.

PS. Let's leave the gay angle out of the discussion

My father was a staunch Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and now Deputy Campaign Manager gets his sentence.  36 months probation, 45 days of weekend jail.  Bullshitters only fool themselves, though they can impede an investigation if enough of them do the Doggy Style. Then they get to pay the price. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/17/rick-gates-sentenced-to-1-year-of-probation-086439 

 

Happens in every administration.

Share this post


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

God I sure fucking hope so.  There's nothing better than getting this kind of thing in front of a real court with real rules of evidence.  There's a reason Trump and his buddies always settle their cases when their pre-trial intimidation doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

God I sure fucking hope so.  There's nothing better than getting this kind of thing in front of a real court with real rules of evidence.  There's a reason Trump and his buddies always settle their cases when their pre-trial intimidation doesn't work.

You can tell it's a non-partisan news site by the pictures. Fuuuuuck.

5df8d25ee7fffcomey-brennan-trump-steele-

And the text:

Quote

In a bombshell of a statement, attorney Sidney Powell suggested that at least three top Obama regime figures could soon be in serious legal jeopardy. 

Powell, who is currently representing former national security adviser and retired Army general Michael Flynn - who was set up by the FBI - predicted that John Brennan, James Comey and Andrew McCabe may have indictments in their future.

 

Following the release of the long-awaited DOJ Inspector General's report which provided damning evidence that high-ranking officials relied on the debunked dossier of slimy British spook Christopher Steel to defraud the secret court, the next phase is coming. 

 

According to Powell, the ongoing investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax by Attorney General William Barr and prosecutor John Durham could result in the trio facing charges and the very real possibility of jail time. 

The crusading attorney made her comments during a round table discussion on the podcast The War Room.

This is the same crusading attorney that just got Flynn further into the shit? Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There's a reason Trump and his buddies always settle their cases when their pre-trial intimidation doesn't work.

It’s standard operating procedure baffle em with bullshit and lawyers and stop just short of swearing an oath, in a court of law.

Hey it’s worked for Donnie for the last 40-50 years.

How long is it going to be before Congress starts arresting those not responding to subpoenas, then you will see the GOP change, they like to follow their leader but jail time not so much.

Share this post


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

It’s standard operating procedure baffle em with bullshit and lawyers and stop just short of swearing an oath, in a court of law.

Hey it’s worked for Donnie for the last 40-50 years.

How long is it going to be before Congress starts arresting those not responding to subpoenas, then you will see the GOP change, they like to follow their leader but jail time not so much.

My viewpoint as well. Dems need to stop playing nice and letting Moscow Mitch make all the rules. Now he's saying there's no point having witnesses testify at the Senate trial because all the R's are going to vote against impeachment anyhow. Sounds perfectly democratic to me.

Share this post


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

You can tell it's a non-partisan news site by the pictures. Fuuuuuck.

5df8d25ee7fffcomey-brennan-trump-steele-

And the text:

This is the same crusading attorney that just got Flynn further into the shit? Well done.

Yup.  A beacon of legal diligence and honesty.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

God I sure fucking hope so.  There's nothing better than getting this kind of thing in front of a real court with real rules of evidence.  There's a reason Trump and his buddies always settle their cases when their pre-trial intimidation doesn't work.

You'd do the same I imagine

Share this post


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

You'd do the same I imagine

If I was afraid of getting on the stand because I had been lying about the facts all along, then absolutely.  Otherwise, see ya in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If I was afraid of getting on the stand because I had been lying about the facts all along, then absolutely.  Otherwise, see ya in court.

It would seem that conspiracy theories that play well to receptive audiences on Twitter and Foxy News do not do as well in a courtroom and are not as well received by judges who follow the facts and law. Judge Sullivan just doesn’t understand alternative facts (and law).  It isn’t just unfair, it is SO Unfair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 3:21 PM, badlatitude said:

Trump has to be deposed : Judge rules in Zervos case.




All parties involved in Summer Zervos' defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump — including the president himself — should be deposed by January 31, 2019, a New York judge said

Apparently that order wasn’t appealed. Look for a settlement. No way will they let him respond under oath. 

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-records-strongly-corroborate-sex-assault-claims-accuser/story

 

Share this post


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

Apparently that order wasn’t appealed. Look for a settlement. No way will they let him respond under oath. 

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-records-strongly-corroborate-sex-assault-claims-accuser/story

 

Zervos doesn't have to accept a settlement, and I hope she places principle over money. Then again, it will be a lot of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
55 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Apparently that order wasn’t appealed. Look for a settlement. No way will they let him respond under oath. 

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-records-strongly-corroborate-sex-assault-claims-accuser/story

 

Zervos doesn't have to accept a settlement, and I hope she places principle over money. Then again, it will be a lot of money.

How much money in the Campaign war-chest?

No way he pays a settlement, himself.

That's for the little people.

Share this post


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

How much money in the Campaign war-chest?

No way he pays a settlement, himself.

That's for the little people.

I imagine some of those people are shaking that they might be the one chosen to take care of that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet another legal effort by the administration to hide our President’s conversations with world leaders from both the public’s scrutiny but also in violation of federal records laws has been overruled.

We have documentation standards regarding foreign policy and national security which protect our nation from those who might otherwise seek to engage in personal profit from manipulation of US power and prestige.

Too bad Republicans don’t care about these safeguards when it comes to their own representatives.

Trump had an unscripted and sparsely attended meeting with Putin in Hamburg, in fact no US officials have any substantiated info on what was discussed. And no records were kept, evidently, or Trump confiscated them aided by Pompeo, it seems.

It turns out, though, that the Secretary of State and his State Department must keep such records, thanks to a ruling on this issue triggered by a lawsuit by American Oversight and Democracy Forward.

“The administration has done everything it can to hide what Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump discussed in Hamburg,” Austin Evers, executive director at American Oversight, said in a statement in response to Wednesday’s ruling. “Today’s ruling is an important step to ensuring the government complied with its legal obligations.”

Share this post


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

And yet another legal effort by the administration to hide our President’s conversations with world leaders from both the public’s scrutiny but also in violation of federal records laws has been overruled.

 

And I am sure the Honorable William Barr will be the first to prosecute any such violations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Administration Battles New Sanctions on Russia

Oh what a surprise.

 

Quote

The Trump administration is quietly fighting a new package of sanctions on Russia, The Daily Beast has learned. A Trump State Department official sent a 22-page letter to a top Senate chairman on Tuesday making a wide-ranging case against a new sanctions bill. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham—usually a staunch ally of the White House—introduced the legislation earlier this year. It’s designed to punish Russian individuals and companies over the Kremlin’s targeting of Ukraine, as well as its 2016 election interference in the U.S., its activities in Syria, and its attacks on dissidents.

The administration’s letter says it “strongly opposes” the bill unless it goes through a ton of changes. It argues the legislation is unnecessary and that it would harm America’s European allies–potentially fracturing transatlantic support for current U.S. sanctions on Russia. The bill “risks crippling the global energy, commodities, financial, and other markets,” the letter says, and would target “almost the entire range of foreign commercial activities with Russia.”

The Trump administration also argues that the bill would sanction Russian companies for starting their own new energy developments in Russia. And it argues the sanctions could target American banks operating in Russia and harm American asset managers. 

A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the letter but said, “The Administration fully shares the goal of deterring and countering Russian malign influence and aggression.”

Despite Trump’s strong opposition, the bill passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning. Five senators opposed it, all Republicans: Chairman Jim Risch, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Johnny Isacson, Sen. John Barrasso, and Sen. Ron Johnson. 

The bill, called the “Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2019” (DASKA) would level new sanctions against Russian oligarchs, against its banking sector, and against its sovereign debt (which the powerful California Public Employees Retirement System has hundreds of millions of dollars invested). It would also open the door to sanctioning Russia’s ship-building industry in response to the Kremlin’s capture of Ukrainian sailors and ships as they sailed through the Kerch Strait late last year. And it would sanction some crude oil development projects in Russia, as well as energy projects outside the country backed by Russian state-owned entities. 

It would also aim to bring more transparency to purchases of high-end real estate, which many foreign nationals use to launder money into the U.S. And it would require that the State Department and the Intelligence Community report to Congress every 90 days on whether or not the Kremlin is meddling in U.S. elections. 

That last provision drew pointed criticism from the Trump administration, which said it is “designed for failure.” It “seems impossible” to certify that the Kremlin isn’t meddling in U.S. elections, the letter says, noting that the executive branch always opposes requirements that it prove something isn’t happening.  

The letter also includes a line that could be read as a veiled threat to the Kremlin, and which refers to the administration’s current ability to issue new sanctions. 

“The United States can apply much more economic pain using this powerful range of authorities–and the Administration will not hesitate to do so if Russia’s conduct does not demonstrably and significantly change,” it says. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-battles-new-sanctions-on-russia?ref=home

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If my name was Lindsey  ah'd git myself a geiger counter to check that sweet tea. Vlad aint gonna be happy about this.

Either this is a huge feint or Ms Graham's fealty was bought based on domestic revelations inside the National Enquirer vs nasty bits known by the KGB.

Just a wild guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 5:53 AM, Dog said:

Can you blame me?  Go back and read this shit.

 

On 12/17/2019 at 5:54 AM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

For being a lying cunt who relentlessly trolls in bad faith? Yes, I can.

anytime there’s a hard question- like the one sol asked, just now  you dance away like a fucking cowardly bullshitter because you know you are bullshitting and you’d rather troll.

 

I've got a good example of a non-answer and dance away over here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

charges, in a defeat for the Manhattan district attorney's efforts to hold him accountableF even if pardoned by Trump.

From Reuters 
Manaforts fraud case in New York dismissed

Posted December 19, 2019

Paul Manafort, U.S. President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, on Wednesday won the dismissal of New York state fraud charges, in a defeat for the Manhattan district attorney's efforts to hold him accountable even if pardoned by Trump.

/

Have to wonder if somehow Barr is involved and setting the bar too high?

Protecting Donnie is what he’s all about right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Candidate Trump asked Russians for help win the election, the campaign set up meetings to ask Russians for help, they lied about these meetings and falsified documents to cover up the meetings. They met with Russians and had conversations with them before the inauguration and lied about those meetings. They did fundraising with Russians and their proxies.... but did they really do anything wrong?

Investigating them is not just unfair, it’s evidence of a deep state.

Who cares they are still getting help from Russians and their proxies? Why should we worry about the next election? That’s just evidence that Democrats want to invalidate the last election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Donny was a bad boy we should slap his hand and tell him not to do it again.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Really Sol? Just Security? The same idiots that produced this crap... Those straws are Juuust out of reach. 

https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/

 

If you don’t bother to view the emails produced by their FOIA request, you have renounced reason and we have nothing further to discuss. 

Share this post


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

Really Sol? Just Security? The same idiots that produced this crap... Those straws are Juuust out of reach. 

https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/

So you're attacking the source while the WH has not denied any portion of the report?  At least open one eye.  

Share this post


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

If Donny was a bad boy we should slap his hand and tell him not to do it again.

Gonna need to slap his hand in such a way that no future POTUS does it again.

Share this post


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

If you don’t bother to view the emails produced by their FOIA request, you have renounced reason and we have nothing further to discuss. 

and you have it take it...

I went to the JS article and they was no link to the unredacted emails just redacted emails and innuendo. do you have the link to the un-redacted emails?

Share this post


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

and you have it take it...

I went to the JS article and they was no link to the unredacted emails just redacted emails and innuendo. do you have the link to the un-redacted emails?

9f6c8dff34216a9b5d3b74c97b3d8ef2_ear-muf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d love to donate my time to the circle tonight but I can’t. A group of us are going out to bust up a democRAT Party child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor. Save the Children!

Go the Q, bitches!

Share this post


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

If Donny was a bad boy we should slap his hand and tell him not to do it again.

He's a problem child. Better to slap the hand (Impeachment) and move the cookie jar out of reach (Removal from Office.)

Share this post


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

Gonna need to slap his hand in such a way that no future POTUS does it again.

Slap his hand with an ax, like they do in Saudi Arabia.... (Or a bone saw)

Share this post


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

and you have it take it...

I went to the JS article and they was no link to the unredacted emails just redacted emails and innuendo. do you have the link to the un-redacted emails?

Would it make any difference? If the e-mails flat out said Trump told them to hold the payment until Donny got want he wanted, would it make any impact whatsoever on your opinion of Trump? 

Share this post


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

Would it make any difference? If the e-mails flat out said Trump told them to hold the payment until Donny got want he wanted, would it make any impact whatsoever on your opinion of Trump? 

The emails said exactly that.

Share this post


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

Would it make any difference? If the e-mails flat out said Trump told them to hold the payment until Donny got want he wanted, would it make any impact whatsoever on your opinion of Trump? 

I would say "like barry, like donny":lol:

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, warbird said:

I would say "like barry, like donny":lol:

 

How's Rudy's investigation going into Biden's misdeeds in Ukraine? We going to see that soon?

Share this post


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

I would say "like barry, like donny":lol:

 

How's Rudy's investigation going into Biden's misdeeds in Ukraine? We going to see that soon?

So the wardodo's of the world can just pretend that Obama did something to justify Turnip doing it X 100? I think I picked the wrong decade to quit anything that makes me feel better.

Share this post


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

Really Sol? Just Security? The same idiots that produced this crap... Those straws are Juuust out of reach. 

Just Security - Least Biased - CredibleLEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes).  The reporting is factual and usually sourced.  These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-security/

Share this post


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

So the wardodo's of the world can just pretend that Obama did something to justify Turnip doing it X 100? I think I picked the wrong decade to quit anything that makes me feel better.

I hooked up a tube off my autoclave so I can huff some prepreg while it's baking. Shortly before I pass out, I go through a few moments when I know what it's like to be a Trumpkin. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So the wardodo's of the world can just pretend that Obama did something to justify Turnip doing it X 100? I think I picked the wrong decade to quit anything that makes me feel better.

The rules change or do they stay the same?

Share this post


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

The rules change or do they stay the same?

I know. It makes you wonder why a Republican Congress didn't impeach Obama for his blatant attempt to shakedown a foreign government for his own personal gain. Why didn't they do that? Thought provoking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I know. It makes you wonder why a Republican Congress didn't impeach Obama for his blatant attempt to shakedown a foreign government for his own personal gain. Why didn't they do that? Thought provoking.

:ph34r:

Share this post


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

I know. It makes you wonder why a Republican Congress didn't impeach Obama for his blatant attempt to shakedown a foreign government for his own personal gain. Why didn't they do that? Thought provoking.

It will not provoke a single synapse in the dodo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, warbird said:
9 hours ago, bhyde said:

I know. It makes you wonder why a Republican Congress didn't impeach Obama for his blatant attempt to shakedown a foreign government for his own personal gain. Why didn't they do that? Thought provoking.

:ph34r:

 

Got an answer? Dog just runs away from this question.

Biden bragged on national news about his actions with Ukraine. Trump tried to keep his secret

Why?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wasting your time trying to have a fact based discussion with anyone who has renounced reason. 

george-santayana-59215.jpg

Share this post


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

 

Got an answer? Dog just runs away from this question.

Biden bragged on national news about his actions with Ukraine. Trump tried to keep his secret

Why?

- DSK

Uh, let's see...  Because Biden is a braggart and Trump is modest?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

The emails said exactly that.

Please show me the link to the un-redacted emails... Honestly, if you guys are as sure as you sound about this, I'm sure you have the link. 

On the other hand just like SOL you have became the bullshitters you hate so much... 

Share this post


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

You are wasting your time trying to have a fact based discussion with anyone who has renounced reason. 

george-santayana-59215.jpg

show me the facts please... 

Share this post


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

You are wasting your time trying to have a fact based discussion with anyone who has renounced reason. 

george-santayana-59215.jpg

They have their own facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the Rs use all the whataboutism of folks out of the game because otherwise they would have nothing at all to say.

Share this post


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

show me the facts please... 

Facts about what? If you -still- think President Trump is doing a good job, you are clearly not interested in facts. But hell, I'm feeling generous so I'll share a few with ya:

Fact- the economy was in a big up-swing before 2016, even above the Bush/Cheney crash

Fact- Trump is disregarding the Constitution, installing unapproved heads of Federal departments and dismantling regulation with no Congressional oversight or even input (you'd think that even Republicans in Congress would be PO'd about this, but they don't seem to be; which I why I now call them Trumpublicans).

Fact- Trump is so clueless and egotistical that he gets laughed at regularly by other world leaders

Fact- Workers and especially farmers are significantly worse off in "the Trump economy" thanks to his futile trade wars, and his unilateral dismantling of regulation

Fact- Trump has significant ties to Russia and apparently consults privately with Putin; he has made many decisions that primarily benefit Russia to the detriment of US interests

Oh, on the Ukraine thing

Fact- Trump was advised by his own SecDef and SecState that it would be a problem to stop military aid to Ukraine; he did it anyway.

Fact- Trump did in fact ask for "a favor" in relation to aid.

Fact- Trump and his staff tried very hard to keep it a secret, failing at that, Trump then threatened to have the whistleblower killed

Fact- At least 3 people in the public testimony to Congress gave direct first-hand knowledge of Trump's actions and statements

Fact- Trump forbid many people who work for him, and presumably have knowledge, from testifying (this may or may not be against the Constitution; however that is not going to be part of the decision unfortunately). Why do that, unless he has more guilty secrets to hide?

Oh, the Biden distraction?

Fact- a Republican controlled Congress had no problem whatever with Biden's action regarding Ukraine

Is that enough? There's plenty more. Once you get out from under the Fox/Rush umbrella of nice warm comforting bullshit, into the cold hard rain of fact, things look pretty bleak for the US as a constitutional republic in the Trump and post-Trump era.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2019 at 3:34 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

And the Opinion/Order.  

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.144.0_3.pdf

Spin it up, Bullshitters.  That place where people testify under oath is a tough place for bullshitters.  Get to work! 

 

Flynn is in some serious trouble now, thanks to his new attorneys.  He took the Judge's offer to postpone sentencing the last time, in favor of further cooperation with the government to avoid going to jail.  What does he do?  Hires a couple of television attorneys who convince him to fight back with ridiculous Doggy Styling. I have no sympathy for him. 

Gov't advocates a six month prison term for the first National Security Adviser for the Pride of the GOP, for Doggy Styling the investigators. Now he gets another trip in front of Judge Sullivan, who already threatened to throw him in prison before he started going all conspiracy theorist instead of cooperating.

What say you, Bullshitters?  Reckon the Judge will finally understand that bullshitting the investigators is no big deal? 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/477151-feds-recommend-six-month-prison-term-for-michael-flynn 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2020 at 8:33 PM, warbird said:

I would say "like barry, like donny":lol:

 

I am not sure you've really thought that all the way through.

In supporting an action by President Trump by saying "Obama did it, to" means you support what President Obama did.

That's what consistency looks like in a fact-based reality.  You should try it, sometime.

Share this post


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

I am not sure you've really thought that all the way through.

In supporting an action by President Trump by saying "Obama did it, to" means you support what President Obama did.

That's what consistency looks like in a fact-based reality.  You should try it, sometime.

Facts and wardodo don't get along. Reality, what a concept.

Share this post


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

I am not sure you've really thought that all the way through.

In supporting an action by President Trump by saying "Obama did it, to" means you support what President Obama did.

That's what consistency looks like in a fact-based reality.  You should try it, sometime.

 

1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Facts and wardodo don't get along. Reality, what a concept.

It was OK with you. The left defined the rules then cry and whine when the tables turn. 

Share this post


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

I am not sure you've really thought that all the way through.

In supporting an action by President Trump by saying "Obama did it, to" means you support what President Obama did.

That's what consistency looks like in a fact-based reality.  You should try it, sometime.

 

1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Facts and wardodo don't get along. Reality, what a concept.

It was OK with you. The left defined the rules then cry and whine when the tables turn. 

I see my point zoomed right over your pointy little head.

Since it is okay that President Trump did it, it is okay that President Obama did it.  Own your logic.

Share this post


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

I see my point zoomed right over your pointy little head.

Since it is okay that President Trump did it, it is okay that President Obama did it.  Own your logic.

Dont get butthurt when the Rs stoop down to the Ds level.

Share this post


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

I see my point zoomed right over your pointy little head.

Since it is okay that President Trump did it, it is okay that President Obama did it.  Own your logic.

No, no, no.

it is OK that Trump did it because he is American.  Not O.K forObama because he is a DemonCRAT and there is that pigment thing.

Just for giggles there is also Hillary’s email, basement pizza, and the never to be forgotten BENGHAZI!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, warbird said:

Dont get butthurt when the Rs stoop down to the Ds level.

What, are the D's impeaching an R President for a blowjob now?

- DSK

Share this post


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

What, are the D's impeaching an R President for a blowjob now?

- DSK

Shhhhh. Nobody's supposed to know about that little escapade with Putin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Shhhhh. Nobody's supposed to know about that little escapade with Putin.

I've heard about that basement in the White House.

Share this post


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

I've heard about that basement in the White House.

Is that the one that used to be under Comet Ping Pong?

Share this post


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

I see my point zoomed right over your pointy little head.

Since it is okay that President Trump did it, it is okay that President Obama did it.  Own your logic.

Dont get butthurt when the Rs stoop down to the Ds level

I can understand why you won’t let yourself grasp this simple concept. To admit you are okay with something President Obama did is just unthinkable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


.......and just for fun -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lawsuits_involving_Donald_Trump

Lawsuits around United States ConstitutionEdit

Lawsuits around Executive OrdersEdit

Lawsuit around Presidential ProclamationsEdit

Lawsuits around Presidential MemorandumsEdit

Lawsuits around potential legal violationsEdit

Lawsuits around the United States CensusEdit

Lawsuits around Trump political campaignsEdit

  • Lawsuit alleging that the Trump Campaign used mass, unsolicited communication of promotional messages that the plaintiffs did not consent to receive[11]
    • Thorne v. Donald J Trump for President Inc.
  • Lawsuit alleging Russian interference in the 2016 Federal Elections, the Trump campaign was accused of engaging in a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with Russia and WikiLeaks
  • Lawsuit regarding a pattern of persistent illegal conduct, occurring over more than a decade, that includes extensive unlawful political coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions to benefit Mr. Trump’s personal and business interests, and violations of basic legal obligations for non-profit foundations
  • Lawsuit in which plaintiffs alleged Trump's security team assaulted them during a 2015 peaceful protest based around Trump's campaign comments about Black Lives Matter and Mexican immigrants
  • Lawsuit alleging Trump encouraged an atmosphere of violence and anti-Trump protesters were subjected to attacks and racial slurs being led out of a campaign rally in 2016
    • Nwanguma v. Trump[14]
  • Lawsuit alleging that Trump and the Republican National Committee colluded to prevent any competition to Trump’s re-election campaign.
    • Roque De La Fuente v. Trump & Republican National Committee

[15][16][17]

Lawsuits around potential sexual misconduct and assaultEdit

  • Lawsuit by Katie Johnson which alleges that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein sexually and physically abused her under threats to physically harm her and her family while a 13-year-old minor from June–September 1994
    • Katie Johnson v. Donald J Trump and Jeffrey E Epstein[18] (dismissed)
  • Lawsuit by Jane Doe which alleges Trump and Epstein engaged in forcible rape, imprisonment and assault while she was 13-year-old minor and another 12-year-old girl in 1994
    • Jane Doe v. Donald Trump & Jeffrey E Epstein[19] (dismissed by Doe)[20][21]
  • Lawsuit by former campaign staffer, Alva Johnson, who claims that Trump forcibly kissed her at a rally in Florida in August 2016, the lawsuit also alleges unequal pay standards for her an African-American woman compared to others on the team
    • Johnson v. Trump[22]
  • Defamation lawsuit raised by Summer Zervoswhich arose from Trump's statement that she lied about sexual assault allegations against him
    • Zervos v. Trump[23]
  • Defamation lawsuit raised by E. Jean Carrollwhich arose from Trump's denials of her accusation that he sexually assaulted her more than 20 years ago damaged her reputation
    • Carroll v. Trump[24]

Lawsuits around financial manipulation and employee paymentEdit

  • Lawsuit alleging violations of employee payment regarding not paying him for "thousands of hours of overtime" to which he was legally entitled during his more than two decades of service
  • Lawsuit alleging that Trump and his adult children had made a large amount of money by encouraging unsophisticated investors to join fraudulent schemes

Lawsuits around Trumps financial and tax informationEdit

  • Appeal lawsuit against the Mazarsaccounting firm, in an effort to have Trump's financial information kept private
  • Appeal lawsuit against the Deutsche Bankand Capital One Bank from fulfilling the subpoenas issued to the company by the House Financial Services and Intelligencecommittees for Trumps, his adult children, and his businesses financial records
  • Case before the Supreme Court of the United States: Does a grand-jury subpoena by a state District Attorney for the President's financial records violate Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution?
  • Case in D.C. court challenging the New York TRUST Act, which gives Congress the right to obtain tax information on New York residents. Case dismissed November 11, 2019.
    • Donald J. Trump v. Committee on Ways and Means, et al.[31]

Lawsuits around environmental concernsEdit

All current pending prosecutionEdit

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe any of that, so it didn't happen.  I believe that the democRATS ran a child sex ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor with no basement, so it happened.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ooopsie another one bites the dust:

 

I am sure there are more inside traders but getting caught and going to jail is for the poor people, right?

From AXIOS

Federal prosecutors recommended Monday that former Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) be sentenced to up to 57 months in prison for pleading guilty to insider trading last year.

Why it matters: Collins was the first congressman to endorse President Trump in 2016 and resigned in September after changing his not-guilty plea. Prosecutors argue that he should not receive leniency because he continued to serve in Congress while hiding his crimes.

Context: In August 2018, Collins was arrested in connection with an alleged insider trading scheme involving Innate Immunotherapeutics, an Australian drug company whose board he sat on for years.

  • Prosecutors allege that Collins received a tip about about a failed clinical trial involving the company's only product.
  • He then allegedly called his son Cameron, who sold off shares of Innate stock the next day.

What they're saying:

"In committing insider trading and later lying to federal agents to cover it up, and in continuing to actively serve in the House of Representatives during that time period, Collins came to embody the cynical idea that those in power who make the laws are not required to follow them. This surely was not lost on him, but it did not cause him to hesitate in making the choice to commit multiple crimes while holding one of the most visible and prestigious jobs in the United States."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Navig8tor said:

ooopsie another one bites the dust:

 

I am sure there are more inside traders but getting caught and going to jail is for the poor people, right?

From AXIOS

Federal prosecutors recommended Monday that former Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) be sentenced to up to 57 months in prison for pleading guilty to insider trading last year.

Why it matters: Collins was the first congressman to endorse President Trump in 2016 and resigned in September after changing his not-guilty plea. Prosecutors argue that he should not receive leniency because he continued to serve in Congress while hiding his crimes.

Context: In August 2018, Collins was arrested in connection with an alleged insider trading scheme involving Innate Immunotherapeutics, an Australian drug company whose board he sat on for years.

  • Prosecutors allege that Collins received a tip about about a failed clinical trial involving the company's only product.
  • He then allegedly called his son Cameron, who sold off shares of Innate stock the next day.

What they're saying:

"In committing insider trading and later lying to federal agents to cover it up, and in continuing to actively serve in the House of Representatives during that time period, Collins came to embody the cynical idea that those in power who make the laws are not required to follow them. This surely was not lost on him, but it did not cause him to hesitate in making the choice to commit multiple crimes while holding one of the most visible and prestigious jobs in the United States."

“A gentleman is confident but not arrogant.  A fool quite the opposite.”

-Confucius 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oopsie Mikey has changed his mind again, he doesn't really want to go to jail, seems his new best legal team are not actually doing him any favors accusing the DOJ of gamesmanship.

Honestly YCMTSU.

 

 

 

Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on Tuesday after federal prosecutors recommended he serve up to six months in prison for lying to the FBI.

Flynn’s legal team accused the federal government of breaching a plea agreement and acting in “bad faith” after the Justice Department said last week the former aide had grown uncooperative and attempted to get his charges dismissed, rather than own up to his actions. The move was a sharp rebuke to Flynn and his new attorneys, who have spent months lambasting special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“The prosecution has shown abject bad faith in pure retaliation against Mr. Flynn since he retained new counsel,” Flynn’s attorneys wrote in the motion. “This can only be because with new, unconflicted counsel, Mr. Flynn refused to lie for the prosecution. In pure spite, the government retaliated.”

The motion later noted: “Justice is not a game, and there should be no room for such gamesmanship in the Department of Justice.”

Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to FBI investigators about his conversations with Russian officials. At the time, he agreed to help Mueller’s investigation as it worked to determine if anyone in Trump’s orbit conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Prosecutors in turn didn’t push for Flynn to serve any prison time, calling him a “particularly valuable” font of information.

But prosecutors said Flynn grew increasingly unhelpful over the past year, writing this month that he has “sought to blame almost every other person and entity involved in his case, including his former counsel.”

“The defendant has also chosen to reverse course and challenge the elements and circumstances of his false statements to the FBI,” prosecutors wrote.

Flynn lost an effort to get his charges dismissed last month after a judge filed an exhaustive, 92-page ruling rebuffing a series of accusations that his conviction was rife with misconduct.

 

In its recommendations last week, the Justice Department also noted that others who have pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry have been sentenced to prison time, notably former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and the lawyer Alex van der Zwaan.

“Neither defendant was a high-ranking government official, held a position of trust vis-à-vis the United States, held a security clearance, had a special understanding of the impact of providing misleading information to investigators or denied responsibility for his unlawful conduct,” prosecutors said.

Flynn is set to be sentenced on Jan. 28, although his attorneys asked for that date to be rescheduled to late Febr

headshot
Senior Reporter, HuffPost
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His lawyers are gonna get him thrown under the jail. Bad faith for not living up to the plea deal after he ceased cooperation on bullshit grounds? That just doesn’t seem wise when he is before a judge with a fact based reality. 

Share this post


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

His lawyers are gonna get him thrown under the jail. Bad faith for not living up to the plea deal after he ceased cooperation on bullshit grounds? That just doesn’t seem wise when he is before a judge with a fact based reality. 

There’s a url for his fundraising site in a footnote of the motion, the whole things  just MAGA grifting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They dont have to accept the new plea, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites