Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 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

8 hours ago, RKoch said:

The legal clowns are floating a new defense.

This is a new “defense”
Quote Tweet
Fox News
 
@FoxNews
.@AlanDersh: "Every candidate violates the election laws when they run for president...here they're trying to elevate this into an impeachable offense or a felony against the president." #Tucker

Fake News! No Coordination!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Reading some of dog's post's have fried my brain.

I am looking forward to the Distraction of the Day. I really thought we would get a glimpse of it last night but the messiah wasn’t giving the marching orders yet. Im sure Foxy News will have some clues. 

Edit. millennials are not patriotic. C’mon Dog, you’ve got a head start on this. Get back to work. 

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

I am not advocating this action.  Just pointing out Senator Graham has already made his feelings known.

Lyndsey Graham's Old Comments About Impeachment Come Back To Haunt Him.

That’s no longer the horn Sen Graham will blow. Lindsay’s gone full Trumpette. 

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

I am looking forward to the Distraction of the Day. I really thought we would get a glimpse of it last night but the messiah wasn’t giving the marching orders yet. Im sure Foxy News will have some clues. 

Edit. millennials are not patriotic. C’mon Dog, you’ve got a head start on this. Get back to work. 

My take. The Manifort convictions are a good thing, the asshole ripped us off and has to pay but other than demonstrating bad judgement in hiring him, Trump skates. Cohen admits to campaign finance violations that many believe are not violations at all.  Could be a serious problem for Trump but minor compared to what I thought Cohen might deliver wrt his business dealings.  That one has yet to play out. All in all, clearly a bad day for Trump.

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

My take. The Manifort convictions are a good thing, the asshole ripped us off and has to pay but other than demonstrating bad judgement in hiring him, Trump skates.

No-one was claiming that Trump would be implicated in those charges. As you have said before, Manafort being convicted gives Mueller leverage. We have yet to see whether Trump "skates" on what Manafort has to offer Mueller.

 

4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Cohen admits to campaign finance violations that many believe are not violations at all.  Could be a serious problem for Trump but minor compared to what I thought Cohen might deliver wrt his business dealings.  That one has yet to play out. All in all, clearly a bad day for Trump.

It doesn't matter what "many believe". The law is clear, otherwise Cohen wouldn't be able to plead guilty to breaking it. Sorry Dog, but you're going to have to try something better than the "many believe breaking the law isn't breaking the law" line of twaddle.

I do however agree with you - this has yet to fully play out and Trump is already implicated in violations of campaign finance laws. Cohen has stated there is more to share, Trump's days are going to get worse.

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

My take. The Manifort convictions are a good thing, the asshole ripped us off and has to pay but other than demonstrating bad judgement in hiring him, Trump skates

Really profoundly bad judgement
 

Quote

 

This is about Trump. A paradox here: If you're willing to set aside the issue of whether Manafort's relationship to a Ukrainian president proves any sort of "collusion with the Russians," it's easier to be clear-headed about how Manafort implicates Trump.

Manafort is one of many, many folks with troubled backgrounds and histories of bad behavior who have worked with Trump and influenced his policy leanings. Trump's campaign and administration hava featured a parade of incompetent and embarrassing figures, and a high turnover rate. While many on the left are willing to believe any sort of accusation against Trump and the people around him with only the slightest of evidence—or no evidence at all—this is not the case with Manafort.

Manafort was bad news. Those of us who care little about the highly politicized fight over "collusion," or who take a dim view of the absurd idea that Russian social media buys made people vote for Trump, should still recognize that Manafort representats a much more dangerous problem: Trump's terrible judgement. If we grant the president his innocence in any Russian meddling (and I actually do, based on current information), Manafort's participation in Trump's campaign will nevertheless taint the rest of his presidency. No amount of "Deep State" conspiracy complaints and screams of "Witch Hunt" can erase the reality that the former head of his campaign was financially beholden to a foreign power. Manafort's conviction is not grounds for impeaching Trump, but Trump's record of poor judgment in his personnel decisions might—and frankly should—cause some people to think twice about re-electing him.

Manafort is "The Swamp." Trump campaigned on a promise to drain "the swamp," meaning the culture of corruption, cronyism, and self-dealing that causes the federal government to grow ever larger for the fiscal benefit of a select few. Yet Manafort has always been a clear and obvious veteran swamp-dweller, using his connections to lobby for policies that benefit special interests and pocketing the money. During the trial, prosecutors say one bank chief executive officer kept approving loans to Manafort that they otherwise would have likely rejected because he was hoping for a role within the Trump administration.

 

 

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

Cohen admits to campaign finance violations that many believe are not violations at all. 

Correction: I think many used to believe that squelching bimbo eruptions was OK. They might have changed their minds...

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

No-one was claiming that Trump would be implicated in those charges. As you have said before, Manafort being convicted gives Mueller leverage. We have yet to see whether Trump "skates" on what Manafort has to offer Mueller.

 

It doesn't matter what "many believe". The law is clear, otherwise Cohen wouldn't be able to plead guilty to breaking it. Sorry Dog, but you're going to have to try something better than the "many believe breaking the law isn't breaking the law" line of twaddle.

I do however agree with you - this has yet to fully play out and Trump is already implicated in violations of campaign finance laws. Cohen has stated there is more to share, Trump's days are going to get worse.

This is false. Cohen is not contesting the charge. That does not mean it constitutes a violation of law.

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

 

WOW!!  If that doesn't elicit a Tweetstorm from the Oval Office, I don't know what would!!!!

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

Cohen admits to campaign finance violations that many believe are not violations at all.  

So The Smartest Lawyer New York Ever Produced pleaded guilty to something that isn’t a crime, implicating Individual 1 in the conspiracy?  

Could we see a cite for a few of those many who believe that?

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

This is false. Cohen is not contesting the charge. That does not mean it constitutes a violation of law.

Cohen wasn't charged with a non-violation of the law. He was charged with a violation of the law. Judges don't accept guilty pleas for non-crimes and non-violations of the law. You're wrong.

You're speaking out of your ass, Dog. Which, to be frank, we were all expected when the news hit. You should have waited a little longer for the talking points, cos this half-baked one isn't doing you any good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the very least, the Cohen implication that he violated campaign laws at the direction of the candidate to pay hush money to someone so that people wouldn’t decide their vote on it marks the election as tainted and invalid.  At the very least we should withhold any SCOTUS nominations until this gets settled.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
41 minutes ago, Dog said:

Cohen admits to campaign finance violations that many believe are not violations at all.  

So The Smartest Lawyer New York Ever Produced pleaded guilty to something that isn’t a crime, implicating Individual 1 in the conspiracy?  

Could we see a cite for a few of those many who believe that?

The main one would have to be Betsey Wright

The woman could coin a phrase. "Bimbo eruptions." Just beautiful. I didn't know it originally referenced stupid men. Oh well, it doesn't any more.

Not sure if she paid them or threatened them or both, but whatever she did must not have been a campaign finance violation.

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

Cohen wasn't charged with a non-violation of the law. He was charged with a violation of the law. Judges don't accept guilty pleas for non-crimes and non-violations of the law. You're wrong.

You're speaking out of your ass, Dog. Which, to be frank, we were all expected when the news hit. You should have waited a little longer for the talking points, cos this half-baked one isn't doing you any good.

Nonsense...Campaign finance laws exist but that does not mean the actions that Cohen admitted guilt to would, if contested, be found to constitute a violation of those laws. He struck a plea, presumably he got some consideration for not contesting the charge....get it?

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

Just watched FOX Neuz. They are telling the faithful that this proves this is a witch hunt, it's a great victory for the President, and Lanny Davis, Cohen's lawyer, works for Hillary.

 

 Why they haven't locked her up yet is a deep mystery to most FOX viewers, I'm sure.

 

  

 

Ask any Trumpista how many years Hillary should be locked up.  Watch them sweat,  and then they run.

It’s wierd.

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

I used to laugh at the absurdity of Bill Clinton's "definition of what 'is' is".

That man cannot hold a candle to @Dog when it comes to obfuscation as a means of defense.

Bla bla bla...

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

before everyone gets too excited..a little perspective.Cohen is a known liar and shitbag..say anything to save his own skin..He prolly does have stuff on trump and plenty of it but I wonder if he's still in trumps pocket and will confess only to things he knows Trump can actually refute...and get pardoned...it all seems a bit too easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Nonsense...Campaign finance laws exist but that does not mean the actions that Cohen admitted guilt to would, if contested, be found to constitute a violation of those laws. He struck a plea, presumably he got some consideration for not contesting the charge....get it?

If his actions didn't constitute violation of the law, the judge wouldn't accept a confession of those actions to constitute a crime.. A judge doesn't accept a guilty plea to murder, if the actions you confess to are not murder. Same applies here.

You're talking out of your ass, Dog. Should have waited for better talking points. You're really embarrassing yourself with this one.

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

Again, once pardoned you can't invoke your 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. Trump has power dangling pardons, not once he's pardoned them.

and you can't be tried twice...it's most probably all true what Cohen tells..I'm just surprised he'd flip so easily.

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

why? most of the others have flipped easily. they are all overly-leveraged, greedy, cheating, scumbags. Trump couldn't get anyone else.

Shirly if Cohen knows it all. he's a dead man walking..and if anyone knows it all..It's Cohen..Trumpd forgotten

You've still got to get him on "High crimes and M'ds" and if dog is any indication..well..everybody pays hush money..so what

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

 

If his actions didn't constitute violation of the law, the judge wouldn't accept a confession of those actions to constitute a crime.. A judge doesn't accept a guilty plea to murder, if the actions you confess to are not murder. Same applies here.

You're talking out of your ass, Dog. Should have waited for better talking points. You're really embarrassing yourself with this one.

Dude...There is no judge deciding if what Cohen admitted to constitutes a violation of law. You don't adjudicate a confession. The purpose of a plea deal is to bypass the process of adjudication...Get it yet?

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

before everyone gets too excited..a little perspective.Cohen is a known liar and shitbag..say anything to save his own skin..He prolly does have stuff on trump and plenty of it but I wonder if he's still in trumps pocket and will confess only to things he knows Trump can actually refute...and get pardoned...it all seems a bit too easy.

Everyone in the circle of the Most Honest Man in the GOP is a known liar and shitbag, seemingly. That’s why so many of them record conversations, which Cohen did. We’ve heard one of the ones on this topic. 

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

Dude...There is no judge deciding if what Cohen admitted to constitutes a violation of law. You don't adjudicate a confession. The purpose of a plea deal is to bypass the process of adjudication...Get it yet?

In which Dog shows how little he knows about how his judicial system works. Go ahead, Dog, tell everyone again how the judge isn't needed to accept the plea bargain. Be sure to Google your mistake first and then say something monumentally stupid in an attempt to weasel out of admitting you fucked up.

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

Dude...There is no judge deciding if what Cohen admitted to constitutes a violation of law. You don't adjudicate a confession. The purpose of a plea deal is to bypass the process of adjudication...Get it yet?

I believe part of the plea deal is an agreement that a crime was committed, and that the plea is for the identified crime.

Linky

Pertinent part - 

If the defendant pleads guilty, the law requires that he do so honestly. Often, the defendant must state, under oath and in open court, what he did that constituted a crime – for example, that he struck or shot another person, stole money from his employer’s petty cash, or drove drunk. The law does not permit the defendant to lie about his guilt just to get a plea deal.

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

Only in response to nothing. Why don't you attempt to contribute something on the topic?

Dog, you're an idiot.

Yeah  I  said it. In fact you're a fucking idiot. You have absolutely no idea about truth, honesty  purjury and a multitude of other words that exist.  Read a fucking dictionary.  Your ability to continually argue the definition of words and prove your ignorance time and time again is worthy of a gold medal.

 

What's your mums phone number?  I'm going to ring her and ask her to turn off your computer.  No fucking way are you bright enough to turn it back on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

Dog, you're an idiot.

Yeah  I  said it. In fact you're a fucking idiot. You have absolutely no idea about truth, honesty  purjury and a multitude of other words that exist.  Read a fucking dictionary.  Your ability to continually argue the definition of words and prove your ignorance time and time again is worthy of a gold medal.

 

What's your mums phone number?  I'm going to ring her and ask her to turn off your computer.  No fucking way are you bright enough to turn it back on.

No.  Dog does know about truth, honesty, etc.

He is just willing to suspend that knowledge in defense of a man he claims to not support.

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

Dude...There is no judge deciding if what Cohen admitted to constitutes a violation of law. You don't adjudicate a confession. The purpose of a plea deal is to bypass the process of adjudication...Get it yet?

There isn’t?  A judge doesn’t have to approve this deal?  A judge didn’t ascertain Cohen’s competence and that of his counsel?  A judge doesn’t still have to declare him convicted?  

Get better talking points. Get some lawyers involved, so they comport with procedural reality. 

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

Everyone in the circle of the Most Honest Man in the GOP is a known liar and shitbag, seemingly. That’s why so many of them record conversations, which Cohen did. We’ve heard one of the ones on this topic. 

Yeah, I listen to that tape..its a bit wonkey...even the CNN presented it with extreme caution...

Sol, you're the lawyer..play devils avocado :) 

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

Yeah, I listen to that tape..its a bit wonkey...even the CNN presented it with extreme caution...

Sol, you're the lawyer..play devils avocado :) 

Remember the search(es) and how indignant President Individual 1 was about them?  This is why. They have Cohen cold. He could have the entire Fox News and online GOP propaganda machine distorting reality for him if he had any chance. He knows he has no chance. They got a judge to okay a search of an attorney’s office. That doesn’t happen to lawyers who are not committing crimes with their clients.

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

In which Dog shows how little he knows about how his judicial system works. Go ahead, Dog, tell everyone again how the judge isn't needed to accept the plea bargain. Be sure to Google your mistake first and then say something monumentally stupid in an attempt to weasel out of admitting you fucked up.

Hey everybody.... A plea deal does not have to be adjuciated. I can't dumb it down enough for this idiot.

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

There isn’t?  A judge doesn’t have to approve this deal?  A judge didn’t ascertain Cohen’s competence and that of his counsel?  A judge doesn’t still have to declare him convicted?  

Get better talking points. Get some lawyers involved, so they comport with procedural reality. 

Did I say anythin to the contrary or are you doggiestyling?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Dog said:
16 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Be sure to Google your mistake first and then say something monumentally stupid in an attempt to weasel out of admitting you fucked up.

Hey everybody.... A plea deal does not have to be adjuciated.

Perfect.

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

Hey everybody.... A plea deal does not have to be adjuciated. I can't dumb it down enough for this idiot.

Oh, dunno...... somehow, insisting that a guy pleading guilty really means that he did not commit a crime, that's just too much of a stretch

It's not that people don't "get it." It's that your statement..... the rightie talking points du jour..... are so fuckin' ridiculously stupid that rather few can actually believe you're saying it

-DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

Oh, dunno...... somehow, insisting that a guy pleading guilty really means that he did not commit a crime, that's just too much of a stretch

It's not that people don't "get it." It's that your statement..... the rightie talking points du jour..... are so fuckin' ridiculously stupid that rather few can actually believe you're saying it

-DSK

Your doggiestyling...I never said he didn't commit a crime.

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

Your doggiestyling...I never said he didn't commit a crime.

47 minutes ago, Dog said:

Nonsense...Campaign finance laws exist but that does not mean the actions that Cohen admitted guilt to would, if contested, be found to constitute a violation of those laws.

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

This is false. Cohen is not contesting the charge. That does not mean it constitutes a violation of law.

You can't be as stupid as you sound here. Cohen apparently will get five years in the slammer for pleading guilty to non-crimes. He may not be a great lawyer but he is not that dumb.

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

Hey everybody.... A plea deal does not have to be adjuciated. I can't dumb it down enough for this idiot.

A guilty plea accepted by the judge means its been adjudicated.  Hence the judge asking Cohen if he knew what he was doing and what it meant to his future.  Then asking his lawyers if they thought he knew the consequences.  Cohen has been adjudicated.  And he implicated Trump as a co-conspirator.  I suspect Mueller may issue a subpoena this week. 

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

A guilty plea accepted by the judge means its been adjudicated.  Hence the judge asking Cohen if he knew what he was doing and what it meant to his future.  Then asking his lawyers if they thought he knew the consequences.  Cohen has been adjudicated.  And he implicated Trump as a co-conspirator.  I suspect Mueller may issue a subpoena this week. 

mueller knew all about the stormy payment prior to kicking the case to sdny - we all did because trump admitted it in revised paperwork.  if mueller is going to bargain with cohen, it won't be about the fec charge sdny wrote up.  and mueller better not let cohen skate on back taxes.

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

A guilty plea accepted by the judge means its been adjudicated.  Hence the judge asking Cohen if he knew what he was doing and what it meant to his future.  Then asking his lawyers if they thought he knew the consequences.  Cohen has been adjudicated.  And he implicated Trump as a co-conspirator.  I suspect Mueller may issue a subpoena this week. 

It means that the question of whether a campaign finance law has been violated has not been contested. You can not take Cohen's plea deal as proof that a violation of law has been established and that therefore that Trump is implicated in that violation of law.

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

You can't be as stupid as you sound here. Cohen apparently will get five years in the slammer for pleading guilty to non-crimes. He may not be a great lawyer but he is not that dumb.

He struck a deal with prosecutors. What consideration did he get for not contesting campaign finance charges, we don't know. The alternative could have been 10 years in the slammer.

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

It means that the question of whether a campaign finance law has been violated has not been contested. You can not take Cohen's plea deal as proof that a violation of law has been established and that therefore that Trump is implicated in that violation of law.

They judge would not have accepted the plea had the prosecutors not demonstrated the evidence of the crime, which they did in that hearing.  Sorry, but coping a guilty plea by the defendant means a crime was committed if the judge accepts that plea.

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

They judge would not have accepted the plea had the prosecutors not demonstrated the evidence of the crime, which they did in that hearing.  Sorry, but coping a guilty plea by the defendant means a crime was committed if the judge accepts that plea.

what did the fec rule when trump revised his paperwork to show the cohen repayment?

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

They judge would not have accepted the plea had the prosecutors not demonstrated the evidence of the crime, which they did in that hearing.  Sorry, but coping a guilty plea by the defendant means a crime was committed if the judge accepts that plea.

It means that it is accepted that a crime has been committed and only accepted wrt Cohen.

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

Shirly if Cohen knows it all. he's a dead man walking..and if anyone knows it all..It's Cohen..Trumpd forgotten

You've still got to get him on "High crimes and M'ds" and if dog is any indication..well..everybody pays hush money..so what

Levin last night “they all pay hush money”

its definitely at the “yeah, we broke the law but it’s no big deal” stage.

we will soon be at the “I’m not a crook” stage.

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

Did I say anythin to the contrary or are you doggiestyling?

What?  you need to go back to get better talking points.  The judge isn't going to convict someone who hasn't broken a law, even if they are stupid enough to plead to it.  

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

It means that it is accepted that a crime has been committed and only accepted wrt Cohen.

Yes, and since a crime has been committed and the convict has fingered others, the others must be at least investigated and potentially be charged with the same crime. I'm not saying Trump is guilty of violating this crime, but he clearly needs to stand trial to clear his name.

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

What?  you need to go back to get better talking points.  The judge isn't going to convict someone who hasn't broken a law, even if they are stupid enough to plead to it.  

Notice how Dog is trying to change the subject by tying the guilty plea to Trump with "and that therefore that Trump is implicated in that violation of law." Classic Doggy Sytlin'. If you can't win an argument, make up a new argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Again, once pardoned you can't invoke your 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. Trump has power dangling pardons, not once he's pardoned them.

For Cheeto himself, once he leaves office he loses a lot of functional immunity. He could be prosecuted as an ex-President in a way that the courts would never allow for him as a sitting President. They'd say (and Mueller would know this) that it's a political matter for Congress. Still we'll probably go through some stupid really embarrassing stuff first, like firing Mueller and pardoning himself for the good of the country et cetera. The Republican Congress will be forced to act and we may get to a Constitutional crisis. And after we get through all this, we can look forward to the stable and solid leadership of Mike Pence.

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

 

Chessy, I was responding to Dog asserting that liberals usually are all up in arms about “innocent before proven guilty” & “ have the right to remain silent” but weren’t crying this in defense of Trump now that it’s his turn in the hot seat. 

If you, for an instant, believe that Trump doesn’t have all sorts of privilege to rely upon when setting up meetings with prosecutors when compared with the average witness/person of interest in America, I really don’t have anything to say to you. I can only stand, mouth agape.

Now, maybe you would choose a different list of privileges to describe Trump’s advantages in legal proceedings, but I chose to illustrate Trumps advantages as compared with the realities faced by minorities in our courts of law. 

But, why did you feel so very threatened by this comparison? Why did you feel I targeted you? The concept that a prosecutor is out to get their man is nothing new; I was merely pointing this out in comparison to a group that ALWAYS feels LEOs and prosecutors are out to get them. 

Why should Trump expect, or deserve anything different? We have an adversarial legal system! Why do Trump supporters feel Mueller’s investigation should be led by a more charitable prosecutor? I really don’t understand, nor do I savvy how stating my understanding of our legal system is an attack on righties in general.

I agree with all the points that you made in this comment, Philly, and don't think that Trump deserves any special dispensation at all.  I agree with the investigation, what I disagree with is when soeone tries to smear an opposing opinion with the nasty brush of racism as a means to diminish the opinion and the individual holding it.  It happens quite often, and it does indeed bother me.  

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

And after we get through all this, we can look forward to the stable and solid leadership of Mike Pence.

Did you have to bring that up? What a buzz kill. 

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

Notice how Dog is trying to change the subject by tying the guilty plea to Trump with "and that therefore that Trump is implicated in that violation of law." Classic Doggy Sytlin'. If you can't win an argument, make up a new argument.

That's rich...Are you of the opinion that it is wrong to tie the Cohen plea deal to Trump? If so you have a lot of work to do here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sean said:
10 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

And after we get through all this, we can look forward to the stable and solid leadership of Mike Pence.

Did you have to bring that up? What a buzz kill. 

 

I have the funny feeling that some of those indictments still sealed and sitting on a desk........ remember those? ..... are going to put Pence out of action.

-DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

New talking points are out!

Manafort is a brave man.

Screen Shot 2018-08-22 at 10.01.26 AM.png

Just to clear the record, Manafort ripped off the taxpayers of the USA and is now a convicted felon. THAT is what the tweet should be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

I have the funny feeling that some of those indictments still sealed and sitting on a desk........ remember those? ..... are going to put Pence out of action.

-DSK

Can only hope

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

I have the funny feeling that some of those indictments still sealed and sitting on a desk........ remember those? ..... are going to put Pence out of action.

 

How do you think that Pence is connected to this mess?

 

First off, he was neck-deep in running the campaign. And he was "in charge" of the transition team, the people who were supposed to be ready to get in the saddle but arrived at Inauguration Day with no appointments, no policies ready, and no clue what they were about to undertake.

Where did all this money that Manafort and Cohen are guilty of mis-handling come from? Did Pence know about it? What favorable-to-Russia policies has Pence signed off on?

Flynn got shit-canned for "lying" to Pence about his Russian contacts, so he has at least some degree of plausible deniability, but there are a heck of a lot of cracks in that wall. And as has been pointed out, ignorance is not an excuse. He was in charge, if his team was committing treason behind his back (in plain sight) then he's still guilty.

-DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How do you think that Pence is connected to this mess?

Pence was on the transition team and did the vetting of some of the questionable characters with Russian connections, IIRC.  So he's def connected. What isn't known at this point is how much Pence knew or if he committed illegal acts himself. Mueller team is tight-lipped, but I haven't seen any indication so far that Mueller's investigation is looking Pence's direction. That does not eliminate the investigation from looking into Pence at a future date.

Link to post
Share on other sites