Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Exactly.  Someone who tells the truth does not have to fear a perjury trap, because it is not a trap.  Only the Doggy Stylers face such peril.  

Nonsense, there could be another witness offering a false and conflicting account. You know this, you're an attorney, you're doggiestyling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's 7:00am, maybe, it could be 8:00am. It's hard to tell. The electricity has been off for, well, a very long time. The sun is starting to rise over the horizon with the red mist slowly lifting to li

Jack, I think you actually believe this. That's kind of scary, because it shows just how effective propaganda can be.  The dossier has not been disproven, administration and campaign officials ha

Posted Images

...We now return to our regularly scheduled program...

The best defense is a good offense:

The team of investigators working on special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation "are looking to impact" this November's midterm elections, President Donald Trump claimed Monday morning, labeling Mueller's team a "national disgrace."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/20/trump-robert-mueller-2018-midterms-elections-788853

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

Exactly.  Someone who tells the truth does not have to fear a perjury trap, because it is not a trap.  Only the Doggy Stylers face such peril.  

Nonsense, there could be another witness offering a false and conflicting account. You know this, you're an attorney, you're doggiestyling.

Which is why, as a defendant, one often reaches out to witnesses and either offers them bribes or threatens them, to make them tell the truth

-DSK

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

Nonsense, there could be another witness offering a false and conflicting account. You know this, you're an attorney, you're doggiestyling.

If the other witness is lying, the other witness is in peril, not the person telling the truth.  That's why bullshitters end up facing perjury charges and people who tell the truth tend not to.  That's why the White House Counsel has been talking to Mr. Mueller's team, so that the investigators know the truth before the bullshitters try to hang it on him.  

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

If the other witness is lying, the other witness is in peril, not the person telling the truth.  That's why bullshitters end up facing perjury charges and people who tell the truth tend not to.  That's why the White House Counsel has been talking to Mr. Mueller's team, so that the investigators know the truth before the bullshitters try to hang it on him.  

I am reminded of Rudy Guiliani's appearance on this weekend on "Meet the Press", when he was asking how Robert Mueller can discern the truth between what President Trump said and James Comey said.  At 1:35, Chuck Todd asks "Is it possible he makes a conclusion based on who's been more truthful over the years?"  Rudy look absolutely flummoxed.

I guess @Dog would like to pretend President Trump and James Comey are equally believable and it will be next to impossible to figure out who is lying, or, if under oath, committing perjury.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

I am reminded of Rudy Guiliani's appearance on this weekend on "Meet the Press", when he was asking how Robert Mueller can discern the truth between what President Trump said and James Comey said.  At 1:35, Chuck Todd asks "Is it possible he makes a conclusion based on who's been more truthful over the years?"  Rudy look absolutely flummoxed.

I guess @Dog would like to pretend President Trump and James Comey are equally believable and it will be next to impossible to figure out who is lying, or, if under oath, committing perjury.

 

 

The Pride of the GOP and James Comey are both Republicans, so I can see how Dog would struggle to determine which one is more truthful.  

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

Trump's supporters like him because he "tells it like it is".  They don't like me because I do too.  It ain't gonna end well for Trump. 

The problem with feeding people a line of bullshit is that reality has a nasty habit of intruding.

Water runs downhill. With respect for religion (my momma raised me to be polite), I acknowledge the possibility that somewhere, some time, some body -might- have truly been able to pray hard enough to make water run up hill But when somebody tells me they're doing it now, HALLELUJAH, I know that either there's a hidden pump making it -look- like water is running uphill, or they're just hoping that I'm dumb enough to not even look.

America is getting fleeced by a Noo Yawk bullshitter, abetted and enabled by the 0.1%ers who want to run everything (and have grabbed an increasing share of power in the previous 20~30 years) and have the deep pockets to run a media juggernaut screeching hatred & division & "Look, water is running up hill!!"

The America that we knew and loved, that was not perfect but still was an example for history, is probably not going to survive this fleecing

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin Reportedly Close to Firing Giuliani

 

borowitz-andy.png

By Andy Borowitz

10:43 A.M.

 
 

Borowitz-GiulianiPutin.jpg Photograph by Drew Angerer / Getty

MOSCOW (The Borowitz Report)—Vladimir Putin is reportedly “very close” to firing Rudolph Giuliani as Donald J. Trump’s attorney, a source close to the Russian President confirmed on Monday.

According to the source, Putin allowed Trump to hire Giuliani in the first place because “it’s important to let Trump think that he has some autonomy from time to time,” but now the Russian President has apparently determined that “enough is enough.”

Over the next few days, the source indicated, Putin is likely to replace Giuliani with a handpicked successor, Arkady Lubetkin, a criminal-defense attorney who has represented several prominent Russian Mob figures.

After hearing anecdotal reports of Giuliani’s appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Putin initially theorized that the nonsensical nature of Giuliani’s utterances had to be chalked up to “an error in translation,” the source said.

After reading an official transcript of Giuliani’s statements, however, the Russian President was apparently “flabbergasted.”

Pravda is not pravda?” Putin reportedly said. “What is this bullshit?”

 

borowitz-andy.png

Get the Borowitz Report in your in-box. Sign up now!

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

Perjury trap for Trump:

"I, Donald Trump, do solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."

Impeachment trap for Cheeto:

Quote

Big C, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

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

The problem with feeding people a line of bullshit is that reality has a nasty habit of intruding.

Water runs downhill. With respect for religion (my momma raised me to be polite), I acknowledge the possibility that somewhere, some time, some body -might- have truly been able to pray hard enough to make water run up hill But when somebody tells me they're doing it now, HALLELUJAH, I know that either there's a hidden pump making it -look- like water is running uphill, or they're just hoping that I'm dumb enough to not even look.

America is getting fleeced by a Noo Yawk bullshitter, abetted and enabled by the 0.1%ers who want to run everything (and have grabbed an increasing share of power in the previous 20~30 years) and have the deep pockets to run a media juggernaut screeching hatred & division & "Look, water is running up hill!!"

The America that we knew and loved, that was not perfect but still was an example for history, is probably not going to survive this fleecing

-DSK

 

Never saw a reversing waterfall?  Plenty on the downeast coast and Nova Scotia.

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

 

Never saw a reversing waterfall?  Plenty on the downeast coast and Nova Scotia.

Cute

It's still running down hill.

If I saw a reversing waterfall that ran against the tide, -then- I'd be impressed....... so would you, I bet ;)

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the perjury traps Trump should most fear are the ones he’s laid for himself. He’s made so many conflicting statements, over these months in office, that one interview tactic to avoid Trump’s concerns, is just to go over statements like how he didn’t know about the meeting, and then he did. And just compare Trump statements to Trump statements.

If you had well documented conflicting accounts... conflicting statements from witnesses substantiated by documents and/or multiple sources, you could ask to resolve those issues. 

I don’t think anyone but a liar and those abetting his lies would be afraid of that standard. And that’s not Dog. He’s repeatedly said that if judged by a fair standard Trump is guilty, then by all means discover the truth.

Mueller knows that’s it is crucial to do this well. He’s no amateur, and I don’t think Trump scares him in the least.

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

Cute

It's still running down hill.

If I saw a reversing waterfall that ran against the tide, -then- I'd be impressed....... so would you, I bet ;)

-DSK

 

It DOES run uphill where you have huge tides....

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

 

It DOES run uphill where you have huge tides....

So, what you're saying is, that these reversing waterfalls make the water run from the area where the water level is lower UP to the water level that is higher?

The ones I've seen don't. The tide just changes which side is higher.

-DSK

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

I think the perjury traps Trump should most fear are the ones he’s laid for himself. He’s made so many conflicting statements, over these months in office, that one interview tactic to avoid Trump’s concerns, is just to go over statements like how he didn’t know about the meeting, and then he did. And just compare Trump statements to Trump statements.

If you had well documented conflicting accounts... conflicting statements from witnesses substantiated by documents and/or multiple sources, you could ask to resolve those issues. 

I don’t think anyone but a liar and those abetting his lies would be afraid of that standard. And that’s not Dog. He’s repeatedly said that if judged by a fair standard Trump is guilty, then by all means discover the truth.

Mueller knows that’s it is crucial to do this well. He’s no amateur, and I don’t think Trump scares him in the least.

Unfortunately, what Trump tells the press and twitter really doesn't count. There is no legal requirement, as far as I can tell, that he has to be truthful in those cases. Mueller can't say "You said the Tower meeting was about adoption on Meet the Press, and then you said it was to gather information about Hillary on Twitter," since Trump can just say, "So what? I lied to the press. I knew all about the meeting and what it was about. It's not a crime." The only time Trump can step in a perjury trap, is if he is giving sworn testimony in a deposition or in court or before Congress, and that hasn't happened yet. Once he goes on record, and Bobby M finds a conflicting document/witness, that's where the fun begins. All the Crazy Rudy theatrics and Side Show Trump BS is entertaining but irrelevant.

I really doubt Trump is going to sit down with Mueller at any point in the near future. And if Mueller subpoenas Trump, Trump will tell him to fuck off and kick it over to the courts. It's not like Sessions is going to show up and slap the cuff on Trump or the House/Senate is going to move to impeach.

 

 

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

If the other witness is lying, the other witness is in peril, not the person telling the truth.  That's why bullshitters end up facing perjury charges and people who tell the truth tend not to.  That's why the White House Counsel has been talking to Mr. Mueller's team, so that the investigators know the truth before the bullshitters try to hang it on him.  

Bullshit

  • Downvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Unfortunately, what Trump tells the press and twitter really doesn't count. There is no legal requirement, as far as I can tell, that he has to be truthful in those cases. Mueller can't say "You said the Tower meeting was about adoption on Meet the Press, and then you said it was to gather information about Hillary on Twitter," since Trump can just say, "So what? I lied to the press. I knew all about the meeting and what it was about. It's not a crime." The only time Trump can step in a perjury trap, is if he is giving sworn testimony in a deposition or in court or before Congress, and that hasn't happened yet. Once he goes on record, and Bobby M finds a conflicting document/witness, that's where the fun begins. All the Crazy Rudy theatrics and Side Show Trump BS is entertaining but irrelevant.

I really doubt Trump is going to sit down with Mueller at any point in the near future. And if Mueller subpoenas Trump, Trump will tell him to fuck off and kick it over to the courts. It's not like Sessions is going to show up and slap the cuff on Trump or the House/Senate is going to move to impeach.

 

 

I get that none of those tweets were under oath.

But how does the "The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States," Spicer said, when asked during his daily briefing how they should be characterized. Spicer did not indicate whether that included both of the President's Twitter handles: @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS." 

change that?

Is it not binding in any way?

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

I get that none of those tweets were under oath.

But how does the "The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States," Spicer said, when asked during his daily briefing how they should be characterized. Spicer did not indicate whether that included both of the President's Twitter handles: @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS." 

change that?

Is it not binding in any way?

Political suicide? Sure. Legally binding? I don't think so. Trump could just Doggy Style it and say, "Spicer's an idiot. He doesn't speak for me. Bing, bong, bing."

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

So, what you're saying is, that these reversing waterfalls make the water run from the area where the water level is lower UP to the water level that is higher?

The ones I've seen don't. The tide just changes which side is higher.

-DSK

 

Not so, I've seen it with my own eyes on the coast of Maine, when the tide entering a narrow but deep channel will pile up so the water is higher inland.

 

Reversing Falls - Wikipedia

The Reversing Falls are a series of rapids on the Saint John River located in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, where the river runs through a narrow gorge 
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Not so, I've seen it with my own eyes on the coast of Maine, when the tide entering a narrow but deep channel will pile up so the water is higher inland.

 

Reversing Falls - Wikipedia

The Reversing Falls are a series of rapids on the Saint John River located in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, where the river runs through a narrow gorge 

Yeah, I fell off the hay wagon but I didn't fall off it yesterday.

You're saying the water is higher inland.... and flowing inland? I think you mean the other way around.

That's certainly how the ones I've seen work.

It is possible, through tricks of velocity, flow, and inertia, to make water flow up hill for a short way..... see my comment above about pumps. But if the energy making the water move is coming from gravity, then water does not flow from lower to higher, overall.

-DSK

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

 

Not so, I've seen it with my own eyes on the coast of Maine, when the tide entering a narrow but deep channel will pile up so the water is higher inland.

 

Reversing Falls - Wikipedia

The Reversing Falls are a series of rapids on the Saint John River located in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, where the river runs through a narrow gorge 

Thats a natural pump with a logical explanation that can be replicated not in defiance of science. Can prayer make it do that when there's no tide?

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

Yeah, I fell off the hay wagon but I didn't fall off it yesterday.

You're saying the water is higher inland.... and flowing inland? I think you mean the other way around.

That's certainly how the ones I've seen work.

It is possible, through tricks of velocity, flow, and inertia, to make water flow up hill for a short way..... see my comment above about pumps. But if the energy making the water move is coming from gravity, then water does not flow from lower to higher, overall.

-DSK

 

Just click on the Wiki link, if you don't believe me, it's a function of the velocity of the water and narrowness and depth of the inlet that causes the water to pile up, being higher inland.  Pretty wild to see it, but I was not under the influence of any legal or illegal mind altering substances when I saw it, more than once.

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

All waterfalls flow upward.  

All waterfalls flow upward

All waterfalls flow upward.

 

True!  

 

No not all, it's actually pretty rare.... Kind of like the wave you can make in the bathtub pushing the water with your hand....

"Witness the power of the ocean tide. Dropping or rising an average of 20 feet every 6.4 hours, millions of gallons of water flowing into and out of Dennys and Whiting Bays pass through a narrow channel between Mahar Point and Falls Island. In this channel, a large ledge impedes the current creating the falls, deep whirlpools, and high swells. On the outgoing tide, the process occurs in the reverse direction, hence the reversing falls. A 12-foot drop between the two ends of the falls occurs at mid-tide.

Traditionally called Cobscook Falls, Reversing Falls are an unusual phenomenon on the Maine coast. The word Cobscook, derived from the Passamaquoddy work kapscook, means waterfalls. However, as the author Fannie Hardy Eckstorm writes in Indian Place Names of the Maine Coast, "these are not ordinary waterfalls; they are boiling tide over unseen rocks."

"ttps://www.mainetrailfinder.com/trails/trail/reversing-falls

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

Nonsense, there could be another witness offering a false and conflicting account. You know this, you're an attorney, you're doggiestyling.

Sure there could. And one of them could be guilty of perjury by a jury of peers upon weighing the evidence presented. He said / he said isn’t a crime until conviction, or so I’ve heard. 

What are you afraid of? Your guy is a pillar of honesty, nothing to worry about. 

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

 

No not all, it's actually pretty rare.... Kind of like the wave you can make in the bathtub pushing the water with your hand....

"Witness the power of the ocean tide. Dropping or rising an average of 20 feet every 6.4 hours, millions of gallons of water flowing into and out of Dennys and Whiting Bays pass through a narrow channel between Mahar Point and Falls Island. In this channel, a large ledge impedes the current creating the falls, deep whirlpools, and high swells. On the outgoing tide, the process occurs in the reverse direction, hence the reversing falls. A 12-foot drop between the two ends of the falls occurs at mid-tide.

Traditionally called Cobscook Falls, Reversing Falls are an unusual phenomenon on the Maine coast. The word Cobscook, derived from the Passamaquoddy work kapscook, means waterfalls. However, as the author Fannie Hardy Eckstorm writes in Indian Place Names of the Maine Coast, "these are not ordinary waterfalls; they are boiling tide over unseen rocks."

"ttps://www.mainetrailfinder.com/trails/trail/reversing-falls

Kidding.  

I'm doing a Truth isn't Truth example.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
26 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

No not all, it's actually pretty rare.... Kind of like the wave you can make in the bathtub pushing the water with your hand....

"Witness the power of the ocean tide. Dropping or rising an average of 20 feet every 6.4 hours, millions of gallons of water flowing into and out of Dennys and Whiting Bays pass through a narrow channel between Mahar Point and Falls Island. In this channel, a large ledge impedes the current creating the falls, deep whirlpools, and high swells. On the outgoing tide, the process occurs in the reverse direction, hence the reversing falls. A 12-foot drop between the two ends of the falls occurs at mid-tide.

Traditionally called Cobscook Falls, Reversing Falls are an unusual phenomenon on the Maine coast. The word Cobscook, derived from the Passamaquoddy work kapscook, means waterfalls. However, as the author Fannie Hardy Eckstorm writes in Indian Place Names of the Maine Coast, "these are not ordinary waterfalls; they are boiling tide over unseen rocks."

"ttps://www.mainetrailfinder.com/trails/trail/reversing-falls

Kidding.  

I'm doing a Truth isn't Truth example.  

And 1- it's really going off on a tangent from the topic and

2- it's STILL not a case of water flowing up hill. It's a case of "up hill" changing due to large tide and local geography.

Back when I was young, I used to walk to school and home from school, up hill both ways. Bare foot. In the snow. But not under water

-DSK

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

Sure there could. And one of them could be guilty of perjury by a jury of peers upon weighing the evidence presented. He said / he said isn’t a crime until conviction, or so I’ve heard. 

What are you afraid of? Your guy is a pillar of honesty, nothing to worry about. 

The witness in an interrogation doesn't get to decide what is truth, should Trump leave that to prosecutors who are clearly out to get him? One of the interesting things about Trump is how he causes leftists to abandon their principles when he is the subject. Normally staunch defenders of civil rights including presumably the right to remain silent, they suddenly believe there can be no risk talking to prosecutors.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prosecutors don't get to decide what the truth is either. That would be up to judges + juries and to a certain degree, the American people.

Be that as it may, please cite us some examples where us liberal scum are abandoning principles when Cheeto is the subject. We'll need to know the applicable principle as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

The witness in an interrogation doesn't get to decide what is truth, should Trump leave that to prosecutors who are clearly out to get him? One of the interesting things about Trump is how he causes leftists to abandon their principles when he is the subject. Normally staunch defenders of civil rights including presumably the right to remain silent, they suddenly believe there can be no risk talking to prosecutors.

Trump can remain silent.  He could go dark on his Twitter feed.  He could stop lying.  I defend his right to do that.  You can't get caught in a perjury trap if you stay silent or tell the truth.

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

should Trump leave that to prosecutors who are clearly out to get him?

The prosecutor is not also the judge and jury. Have you no faith in America’s legal system?

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

The prosecutor is not also the judge and jury. Have you no faith in America’s legal system?

The prosecutor should be adversarial.  It would be pointless if they weren't.  Which is why it's pointless to bring charges against cops.  Because prosecutors are not adversarial against their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Walter always seeks his own level..... That's why he voted for Trump.

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

The witness in an interrogation doesn't get to decide what is truth, should Trump leave that to prosecutors who are clearly out to get him? One of the interesting things about Trump is how he causes leftists to abandon their principles when he is the subject. Normally staunch defenders of civil rights including presumably the right to remain silent, they suddenly believe there can be no risk talking to prosecutors.

Please stop watching Fox News.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sean said:
35 minutes ago, Dog said:

should Trump leave that to prosecutors who are clearly out to get him?

The prosecutor is not also the judge and jury. Have you no faith in America’s legal system?

except in the donald's case, it won't be a judge or a jury

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

The prosecutor is not also the judge and jury. Have you no faith in America’s legal system?

Given that we are discussing his Messiah, and deep down @Dog knows he is as dirty as they come, it is no wonder he is opposed to any investigation.

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

Given that we are discussing his Messiah, and deep down @Dog knows he is as dirty as they come, it is no wonder he is opposed to any investigation.

Well @Dog certainly wasn't holding his bark when Obama was the subject to any investigation.  He was on that bone.

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

Trump can remain silent.  He could go dark on his Twitter feed.  He could stop lying.  I defend his right to do that.  You can't get caught in a perjury trap if you stay silent or tell the truth.

Chuck Todd nailed it in this exchange -

CHUCK TODD:

Is it possible--

RUDY GIULIANI:

--unorthodox investigation.

CHUCK TODD:

-- is it possible he makes a conclusion based on who’s been more truthful over the years?

RUDY GIULIANI:

It’s possible that he’ll make the conclusion on which of the two statements is more logical, which of the two statements has more common sense. Yeah, it’s possible he can do that. But, no, you can’t bring into, you can’t bring into, into question prior conduct. You’re not even allowed to do that at a trial.

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

The witness in an interrogation doesn't get to decide what is truth, should Trump leave that to prosecutors who are clearly out to get him? One of the interesting things about Trump is how he causes leftists to abandon their principles when he is the subject. Normally staunch defenders of civil rights including presumably the right to remain silent, they suddenly believe there can be no risk talking to prosecutors.

Having opinions similar to all Americans and voicing them about our liar in chief is not anything of what you’ve said.

Trump’s lies have been amply demonstrated from day one of this administration when crowd size suddenly gained importance. Of course he is at risk from prosecutors, since he surrounded himself with miscreants and lowlifes and always  has. He may well have committed several misdemeanors and possibly high crimes. That’s why a war hero is investigating him, not because he sought deferments for bone spurs and not because he’s reportedly assaulted over a dozen women; its criminal activity that has brought the heat.

As then senior campaign advisor and now press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted Nov 3, 2016, “When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing.”

But, by all means, if he is as innocent as he says, he should not fear setting the record straight. In his own words, "I would love to do it, and I would like to do it as soon as possible," Trump told reporters at the White House. "I would do it under oath, absolutely."

Unless you have a cite @Dog, please quit already with the baseless accusations. They’ve become tiresome and you are untrustworthy. 

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

Alternative facts. 

Truth isn’t truth. 

Doggy Style. 

Very Nixonian.  If the president says it, then it must be the truth.

Unless of course if the president is half black and from Kenya.  Right @Dog?  Raises interesting questions doesn't it?

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

 

As then senior campaign advisor and now press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted Nov 3, 2016, “When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing.”

Oh snap!

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

Normally staunch defenders of civil rights including presumably the right to remain silent, they suddenly believe there can be no risk talking to prosecutors.

Who said there isn't a risk? No-one is arguing that there isn't a risk for Trump if he talks to prosecutors under oath. We know there is a risk, as does his legal team, because Trump is a liar.

Also, you conveniently forget is that no-one is arguing Trump lacks the right to remain silent (what staunch defenders of civil rights would fight for). He has the right to remain silent in the interview and invoke the fifth as often as he likes. Civil rights don't state that one is immune from being interviewed. They merely allow you not to answer questions if you so choose.

You want people to stop mocking you for your bullshit? Stop spouting it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cal20sailor said:

Anyone who thought or thinks that Trump will meet with Mueller, I have a bridge for sale.  

I really think Trump wants to meet with Mueller, thinks he can outsmart him. He's like a really smart guy, a stable genius. Of course the few people on his staff that still have any intelligence think he'll perjure himself into impeachment.  

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

I really think Trump wants to meet with Mueller, thinks he can outsmart him. He's like a really smart guy, a stable genius. Of course the few people on his staff that still have any intelligence think he'll perjure himself into impeachment.  

Likely within the first five minutes.

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

Anyone who thought or thinks that Trump will meet with Mueller, I have a bridge for sale.  

I'm pretty damned sure his legal team will do everything in their power to prevent it. That doesn't mean they'll succeed. 

Remember, it isn't solely about Trump doing so willingly. There is the possibility that he cannot just ignore a legally issued subpoena. Should that fight come about, and he lose, I would pay good money to see his reaction before the world is treated to (yet another) tweet storm.

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

I'm pretty damned sure his legal team will do everything in their power to prevent it. That doesn't mean they'll succeed. 

Remember, it isn't solely about Trump doing so willingly. There is the possibility that he cannot just ignore a legally issued subpoena. Should that fight come about, and he lose, I would pay good money to see his reaction before the world is treated to (yet another) tweet storm.

Mueller will not issue a subpoena. My guess is that Jr will have a problem and Sr will blow a gasket.  

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

"concept" of the truth is the bullshitter's way of saying "lie".  That might work for you, but for people who believe that "truth" is a thing, it is bullshit.

You fail to factor in alternate facts.

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

Mueller will not issue a subpoena. My guess is that Jr will have a problem and Sr will blow a gasket.  

I'm not going to rule it in or out. I don't know what information Mueller has in front of him to base his decision on. Issuing the president with a subpoena would be pretty last resort means of having him sit down to an interview but, if Mueller thinks that interview is necessary to finish the investigation, I see him as the type that would make the hard decision to pull that trigger.

I do reckon you have a point on Donald being triggered beyond even his usual petulant tantrums should Jr be indicted. Possibly why Mueller hasn't pulled the pin on that grenade just yet. 

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

I'm not going to rule it in or out. I don't know what information Mueller has in front of him to base his decision on. Issuing the president with a subpoena would be pretty last resort means of having him sit down to an interview but, if Mueller thinks that interview is necessary to finish the investigation, I see him as the type that would make the hard decision to pull that trigger.

I do reckon you have a point on Donald being triggered beyond even his usual petulant tantrums should Jr be indicted. Possibly why Mueller hasn't pulled the pin on that grenade just yet. 

Bent, I'm pretty far to the left but am not sure I want the POTUS subpoenaed, and I hate the asshole.  

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

I'm not going to rule it in or out. I don't know what information Mueller has in front of him to base his decision on. Issuing the president with a subpoena would be pretty last resort means of having him sit down to an interview but, if Mueller thinks that interview is necessary to finish the investigation, I see him as the type that would make the hard decision to pull that trigger.

I do reckon you have a point on Donald being triggered beyond even his usual petulant tantrums should Jr be indicted. Possibly why Mueller hasn't pulled the pin on that grenade just yet. 

And there you have it folks. The definitive analysis on the situation from the worlds preeminent authority on US politics- live from his cabin a few streets back from the waterfront in the tiny town of Buttfuck, New South Wales. 

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

Bent, I'm pretty far to the left but am not sure I want the POTUS subpoenaed, and I hate the asshole.  

Mueller is a Republican and I doubt he feels hatred towards any president. This is not a left vs right issue. This is a matter of whether a president is above the law. 

Nixon was subpoena'd. As was Clinton. I don't see why Trump is any more special than those two presidents. If they can get a subpoena, so can Trump.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Alternative facts. 

Truth isn’t truth. 

Doggy Style. 

In light of what happened to Brennan...In Trumpworld everybody is entitled to their own facts, but not their own opinions. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
8 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Bent, I'm pretty far to the left but am not sure I want the POTUS subpoenaed, and I hate the asshole.  

Mueller is a Republican and I doubt he feels hatred towards any president. This is not a left vs right issue. This is a matter of whether a president is above the law. 

Nixon was subpoena'd. As was Clinton. I don't see why Trump is anymore special than those two presidents.

Ah yes, but that was back when we had an actual Supreme Court, not a group of judges with a slim majority who only look at the letter after the name. I may be doing John Roberts a bit of an injustice, he's voiced a few opinions that are not straight-party-line-propaganda-parroting, but he's about to get a second Trumptard pro-Nazi "If the President does it, it isn't a crime" judge on his court.

It may swing back the other way, I can just about see Roberts telling Gorsuch to shut the hell up and let his betters get a word in edgewise. I wouldn't like to bet a lot on it, though

-DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Junior gets indicted people will be running anywhere but towards the oval office, the donnie will go nuclear and the real mistakes will come thick and fast.

Donnie  cannot resist putting his fetid mouth into gear before engaging whats left of his moronic brain, Mueller surely knows this .

Just look at the twitter rants going on now. No I think Mueller will continue to very slowly twist the screws and will play Donnie like the Putin puppet he is.

Donnie the stable genius wont need Mueller to issue a subpoena  he's already running around like a chook with its head cut off, no I think Mueller knows the ultimate justice will be more poetic if its self inflicted.

Give a DOG enough rope.....it will hang itself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

And there you have it folks. The definitive analysis on the situation from the worlds preeminent authority on US politics- live from his cabin a few streets back from the waterfront in the tiny town of Buttfuck, New South Wales. 

God save the Queen.

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

And there you have it folks. The definitive analysis on the situation from the worlds preeminent authority on US politics- live from his cabin a few streets back from the waterfront in the tiny town of Buttfuck, New South Wales. 

I'm surprised that one of you haven't got a FVIO application form yet

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

Who said there isn't a risk? No-one is arguing that there isn't a risk for Trump if he talks to prosecutors under oath. We know there is a risk, as does his legal team, because Trump is a liar.

Also, you conveniently forget is that no-one is arguing Trump lacks the right to remain silent (what staunch defenders of civil rights would fight for). He has the right to remain silent in the interview and invoke the fifth as often as he likes. Civil rights don't state that one is immune from being interviewed. They merely allow you not to answer questions if you so choose.

You want people to stop mocking you for your bullshit? Stop spouting it.

Sol and others think he does not risk a perjury charge if he testifies to what he believes to be the truth.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

Sol and others think he does not risk a perjury charge if he testifies to what he believes to be the truth.

The oath is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth....not what he wishes the truth was, or what bullshit he hopes sticks to the wall.

I do understand his plight....being a serial liar has consequences. I'm sure he's quite out of practice in telling the truth.

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

The witness in an interrogation doesn't get to decide what is truth, should Trump leave that to prosecutors who are clearly out to get him? One of the interesting things about Trump is how he causes leftists to abandon their principles when he is the subject. Normally staunch defenders of civil rights including presumably the right to remain silent, they suddenly believe there can be no risk talking to prosecutors.

I think the prosecutors are not out to get Trump (paranoia much, Dog). Everything out there about Mueller over his long career suggests he is out to get to the truth and put the bad guys in jail. If Trump is innocent which you maintain there is no problem. Trump has the right to remain silent it is called taking the Fifth. this is entirely different than not having to be subject to an interview. the President is a citizen, nothing more, nothing less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I think the prosecutors are not out to get Trump (paranoia much, Dog). Everything out there about Mueller over his long career suggests he is out to get to the truth and put the bad guys in jail. If Trump is innocent which you maintain there is no problem. Trump has the right to remain silent it is called taking the Fifth. this is entirely different than not having to be subject to an interview. the President is a citizen, nothing more, nothing less.

I think Judge Ellis nailed it when he said the only reason Mueller's team is prosecuting Manifort is to get at Trump, they are definitely out to get him. Secondly, Trump may well be guilty of a crime but it this point we know of no crime he is implicated in so the question of his guilt or innocence is to say the least, premature. In fact we do not even know of a predicate for an interview.

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ah yes, but that was back when we had an actual Supreme Court, not a group of judges with a slim majority who only look at the letter after the name. I may be doing John Roberts a bit of an injustice, he's voiced a few opinions that are not straight-party-line-propaganda-parroting, but he's about to get a second Trumptard pro-Nazi "If the President does it, it isn't a crime" judge on his court.

It may swing back the other way, I can just about see Roberts telling Gorsuch to shut the hell up and let his betters get a word in edgewise. I wouldn't like to bet a lot on it, though

-DSK

When did things change? Just a few years ago, we saw a frequently-unanimous Supreme Court on various issues.

As for Gorsuch, I like it when

On 12/2/2017 at 5:16 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

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

Sol and others think he does not risk a perjury charge if he testifies to what he believes to be the truth.

The question is not what President Trump believes to be the truth.  We have ample evidence, from the man, himself, about what he believes to be the truth.  Of course, it bears no resemblance to what is actually the truth.

That, right there, is almost as comical as Rudy saying "truth isn't truth".  Well done, Dog.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

When did things change? Just a few years ago, we saw a frequently-unanimous Supreme Court on various issues.

As for Gorsuch, I like it when... (a second link, a combo featuring a post from nine months ago)

Tom is responding to Tom, while shuffling and sharing the stuff on his database, which he denies having or using. 

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

Sol and others think he does not risk a perjury charge if he testifies to what he believes to be the truth.

Where did I say that?  I could not give a flying fuck what he, you, or any other piece of shit bullshitter believes the truth to be. I said that he can testify under oath truthfully without putting himself in peril. 

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

Where did I say that?  I could not give a flying fuck what he, you, or any other piece of shit bullshitter believes the truth to be. I said that he can testify under oath truthfully without putting himself in peril. 

And legal minds far superior to yours disagree.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

Where did I say that?  I could not give a flying fuck what he, you, or any other piece of shit bullshitter believes the truth to be. I said that he can testify under oath truthfully without putting himself in peril. 

Ah. I don't believe in perjury trap bs. I believe in accountability.

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

Where did I say that?  I could not give a flying fuck what he, you, or any other piece of shit bullshitter believes the truth to be. I said that he can testify under oath truthfully without putting himself in peril. 

Umm.... if he testifies truthfully, he could put himself in boatloads of peril. 

Link to post
Share on other sites