Jump to content

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Sean said:

Conspiracy perhaps?

Conspiracy?  That’s when there is more than one person involved. This is all Dirty Michael Cohen’s doing. And Corporation 1. And Individual 1. Surrogate Vaginas 1 and 2 are prolly alright. 

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

32 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm not spinning, I'm expressing my opinion (which happens to be correct). It may be unpopular in this liberal echo chamber but that's not my problem.

What are you doing in a liberal echo chamber?

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

I'm not spinning, I'm expressing my opinion (which happens to be correct). It may be unpopular in this liberal echo chamber but that's not my problem.

Not all of us here are liberal but cannot understand how you don't find Trump to be a bad egg on every. single. level. Would you let him babysit your tween daughters? Be your financial advisor? Trust him to follow through on a deal made with a handshake? Believe anything he said if you were chatting at the bar?

I wouldn't.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Trump has Pecker problems.  At this rate, he's going to have a lot of ex-friends he'll call Flip.

There’s a lot of people connected to Trump that appear to be wealthy, but are basically bankrupt!  Very fucking bankrupt!!

Quote

The company ended last year with an outstanding debt load of $920 million and added approximately $80 million more in June when it acquired gossip titles In Touch, Life & Style and Closer, as well as other magazines. The deal gave American Media control over nearly every tabloid weekly sold in the U.S., aside from MeredithCorp.’s People magazine.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pecker-granted-immunity-in-cohen-case-1535041976

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hermetic said:

the reimbursement negates the contribution that exceeds the legal limit

The debt to Cohen was not disclosed on the candidate financial forms. I believe that’s a no no.

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

Pastor asks church to pray for Trump, against witchcraft attacking him



"An Alabama pastor asked his congregation on Sunday to pray against the witchcraft that he said is attacking President Donald Trump, and the sermon is getting a lot of attention on social media. 

"It's time to pray for the president," said Pastor John A. Kilpatrick, who founded the Church of His Presence in Daphne in 2006. 

Kilpatrick quoted 2 Kings 9:22, which attributes witchcraft to Jezebel. "When Elijah faced Jezebel, he was facing witchcraft," Kilpatrick said. 

"What's happening right now in America, is witchcraft's trying to take this country over," he said. "It's witchcraft that's trying to take America back over." 

A video of the sermon that highlights the mention of witchcraft against Trump has more than 100,000 views on social media. The entire sermon can be viewed on the church's web site." 

?t=182 

https://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2018/08/alabama_pastor_asks_church_to.html

That’s seriously disturbing! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

Not all of us here are liberal but cannot understand how you don't find Trump to be a bad egg on every. single. level. Would you let him babysit your tween daughters? Be your financial advisor? Trust him to follow through on a deal made with a handshake? Believe anything he said if you were chatting at the bar?

I wouldn't.

Hmmm, might be why so many people have been recording their conversations with him. The petulant mob boss's word is no good.

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

I'm not spinning, I'm expressing my opinion (which happens to be correct). It may be unpopular in this liberal echo chamber but that's not my problem.

Is your opinion based on any legal training or qualifications?

If not, you’re just pulling out of your ass!

Do you ever wonder why your alone in your view here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

Not all of us here are liberal but cannot understand how you don't find Trump to be a bad egg on every. single. level. Would you let him babysit your tween daughters? Be your financial advisor? Trust him to follow through on a deal made with a handshake? Believe anything he said if you were chatting at the bar?

I wouldn't.

Neither would I, but that doesn't mean everything said about him is true.

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

Is your opinion based on any legal training or qualifications? No

If not, you’re just pulling out of your ass! Not true

Do you ever wonder why your alone in your view here? No

 

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

Hmmm, might be why so many people have been recording their conversations with him. The petulant mob boss's word is no good.

I hope someone on the inside of Trumps circle is recording the latest mood in the White House. 

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

Is your opinion based on any legal training or qualifications? No

If not, you’re just pulling out of your ass! Not true

 Do you ever wonder why your alone in your view here? No

animals-jockey-horse-horse_racing-racing_horse-blinker-jza0152_low.jpg.c4c4caa2bcc0dbfd7bbf8e6c5e7e9499.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NEW YORK (AP) — The National Enquirer kept a safe containing documents on hush money payments and other damaging stories it killed as part of its cozy relationship with Donald Trump leading up to the 2016 presidential election, people familiar with the arrangement told The Associated Press. 

The detail came as several media outlets reported on Thursday that federal prosecutors had granted immunity to National Enquirer chief David Pecker, potentially laying bare his efforts to protect his longtime friend Trump. 


Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty this week to campaign finance violations alleging he, Trump and the tabloid were involved in buying the silence of a porn actress and a Playboy model who alleged affairs with Trump. 

Several people familiar with the National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because they signed non-disclosure agreements, said the safe was a great source of power for Pecker, the company’s CEO.





Ohttps://apnews.com/143be3c52d4746af8546ca6772754407

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

The debt to Cohen was not disclosed on the candidate financial forms. I believe that’s a no no.

Exactly. The Most Competent Crook NY Ever Produced has already said he paid the money. That’s an admission against interest, so that statement gets past the hearsay rule. He paid that money to silence them in an attempt to win an election. And he tried to hide it by not reporting it. 

All the gas lighters have in response is that crimes aren’t crimes. 

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

That may be, the judge can consider a variety of factors before accepting a plea deal. But the judge does not consider all the details necessary to render a verdict like for example whether the actions confessed to are true. The judge does not decide whether the defendant is guilty, the judge accepts that the defendant is guilty.

Nice spin, but this isn't the first time you've tried weaselling out of a fuck up and it's transparent what you're doing.

No-one was arguing the judge ascertains whether the actions confessed to are true (that is a prerequisite of accepting the plea deal, the breaking of which invalidates it). No-one was arguing that the judge ascertains that the defendant is guilty (the defendant admitting they are is a prerequisite of accepting the plea deal, the failure of which invalidates it). The facts you were wrong about were whether the actions confessed to are illegal and whether a judge has adjudicated that. The facts are that the judge needs to decide that the actions confessed to are illegal to accept the plea deal and that accepting the plea deal is an adjudication. 

You are wrong, Dog. Man up and move on. Or keep getting your ass handed to you to the amusement of others. Either works for me.

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

I guess you’ve made progress. As you now agree that Cohen committed a crime.

I never said otherwise, but I would add that Cohen can say anything he wants.

No, you said that "some" think what he did isn't even a crime and then defended that point of view. You were wring to do that, not just because it was a gutless way of admit you believed that, but also because you were wrong. Cohen committed a crime. A judge has stated that to be so by accepting his confessed actions meet the requirements of the statute defining that crime.

You are wrong, Dog, but it is fun to see how far you dig down in your weaselling.

 

7 hours ago, Dog said:

No they don't. I have zero issues with the Cohen case.

This is fucking hilarious. You really, really need to give your bullshit some time to be forgotten before trying to claim you're being verballed. You do realise we quoted your arguments about Cohen's case right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SS Trump has hit the iceberg.  Many Trumpers in the ball room tossed their drinks.  But Dog and Malarkey are on the band stand saying we will now ask the band to start shaking things up with a Mamba.  Everyone in the conga line!  

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/opinion/politics/conspiracy-theory-trump-cohen.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

An excellent explanation of why the Doggy Stylers are full of shit.  

Quote

President Trump needs a new defense. He started out with the claim that he didn’t know anything about payments that his former lawyer Michael Cohen arranged or made to the former Playboy model Karen McDougal and the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels. Mr. Cohen’s tape destroyed that assertion, at least as it applied to Ms. McDougal.

His defense then evolved to denying any personal responsibility for those actions. Predictably, Mr. Cohen’s plea agreement on Tuesday destroyed that defense, too, after he told a federal judge under oath that the president had directed him to arrange payments to the two women, who claim to have had affairs with Mr. Trump, “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”

Now President Trump has moved on to a new defense, claiming that what he did wasn’t a crime and so it can’t be prosecuted. That argument has no basis, either, and is inconsistent with centuries of Anglo-American law.

Here’s the new Trump argument, stripped down to its essence: It was clear that he would reimburse Mr. Cohen for those payments to the women, and he’s allowed under Supreme Court precedent to give his campaign as much of his own money as he wants to.

The problem is that legally, his argument doesn’t get him where he wants to go. Even though Mr. Trump can give his campaign as much of his own money as he wants to, he can’t ask other people to front the money for him and promise to pay them back later without reporting the arrangement in a timely fashion to the Federal Election Commission. But he didn’t report it, subverting the whole point of the nation’s post-Watergate campaign finance laws, which is to disclose campaign giving and spending to the American people before an election — not 20 months later.

 

But, the Trump defenders say, reporting violations happen all the time, and that is certainly true. But there are two facets that make the Trump reporting violations criminally significant, as opposed to a misdemeanor oversight or bureaucratic snafu: It appears to have been an intentional end-run around the campaign finance laws and to involve a conspiracy. Each of these points explains why the new Trump argument will fail.

Criminal law focuses on mens rea, or criminal intent. This means the very same act can be criminal if done with one state of mind and innocent if done with another. It is a mistake to think about Mr. Cohen’s allegations as some sort of routine paperwork error. Structuring a transaction to intentionally avoid reporting it as required by the law is a very serious offense, not a technical one that can be forgiven. That is particularly true of the secret payments to the two women, which, had they been disclosed before the election, as they should have been, might have altered the outcome.

The second facet is even more problematic for the president. Prosecutors use the conspiracy doctrine to punish two or more people who merely agree to commit a criminal act. They don’t even have to actually perform the act; they just need to have agreed to do so. The idea behind conspiracy liability is that when two people agree to commit a crime, it’s much worse for society than when a lone actor does. A Yale Law Journal article I wrote on this subject was inspired by a riddle: Why is it that if you sell a joint, you get a six-month sentence, and if your friend sells a joint, he gets a six-month sentence, but if you both agree to sell a single joint, you get a five-year minimum sentence? The outcomes seem really odd because it looks as if the same crime is getting different punishments.

 

The answer is that it isn’t the same crime, and hasn’t been thought of that way in the Anglo-American legal tradition for over 500 years. Rather, conspiracy has always been a separate offense, punished independently without calibration to the underlying crime. So conspiracy to sell a joint can be punished the same way as conspiracy to sell a kilo of marijuana.

Why would the law be written that way? The answer has to do with the harm to society when individuals agree with one another to commit criminal acts. These acts are seen as possessing a higher level of moral culpability and are also more dangerous. Two people can often do more harm than one. And those criminal economies of scale are sometimes supplemented by psychological dangers. People tend to take more risks in groups than alone. For these reasons, the law has always treated conspiracy harshly. Indeed, for much of American history, conspiring to commit an immoral but not illegal act was itself punishable as conspiracy.

That is why the latest Trump defense has no viability. His defenders say there is no precedent for a campaign finance reporting violation being punished as a serious felony. Even if that claim were true, and it isn’t, they are looking at the wrong precedents. After all, Mr. Cohen has pleaded guilty to making or facilitating illegal campaign contributions and has said the president directed him to do so, suggesting that Mr. Trump was a co-conspirator in those crimes. And even assuming we were dealing with just a reporting violation, the right precedents are the thousands of cases in America where even low-level crimes have been severely punished because they involve intentional conspiracies.

Incidentally, it’s no surprise that Mr. Trump himself came out in an interview aired Thursday against the practice of “flipping,” where prosecutors give a guilty person a deal in exchange for information against another person. Flipping and conspiracy charges go hand-in-hand; the latter is what encourages the former.

We are approaching a reckoning, where criminal and perhaps impeachment processes will begin asking hard questions. It would be a huge mistake for the president to rely on assurances from his legal team that what he did was ordinary and not prosecutable. Rather, if the Cohen allegations are true, what President Trump did was knowingly conspire to violate federal campaign law and to hide it from the American people right before the election, and that very severe crime is one that must be punished.

Neal K. Katyal (@neal_katyal), an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, is a law professor at Georgetown and a partner at Hogan Lovells.

 

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

Cut that out myself, to post.  Beat me to it, but my ego will survive.  Clear and straightforward and the counter-arguments lead nowhere.

 

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

Arguing with the libs. Would you prefer I left?

Wouldn't that constitute disrupting a thread on the forum?....... Which would be a violation of forum terms of use.... I know a couple of others have been banned for such actions.

 If you don't like what people are discussing, you are always welcomed to not engage.

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

What the fuck does he know?

Dog will rip him the shreds. 

No doubt, a fierce Chihuahua.... But toothless.... And very, very small.....

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

Look, can we get past Doggy’s splitting of hairs? The Drip, drip drip thread is better than this!

That's the whole point of disrupting someone else's thread.....

If you stay on topic, and discuss things like adults, then things go smoothly.

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

Neal K. Katyal (@neal_katyal), an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, is a law professor at Georgetown and a partner at Hogan Lovells.

Just highlighting the important part that renders Dog's inevitable "well, I don't accept that" bollocks irrelevant. Dog has been demonstrably wrong about the law a lot recently and, well, this is from a law professor that was also an acting solicitor general. When it comes to authority of opinion and expertise in the subject matter, Dog needs to stick to conversations about licking his balls.

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

Just highlighting the important part that renders Dog's inevitable "well, I don't accept that" bollocks irrelevant. Dog has been demonstrably wrong about the law a lot recently and, well, this is from a law professor that was also an acting solicitor general. When it comes to authority of opinion and expertise in the subject matter, Dog needs to stick to conversations about licking his balls.

The solicitor general's qualifications pale in comparison to Balllicker's. He got a degree in ignorant opinions at Trump U. Got an A+ on his Senior Thesis, "Truth Isn't The Truth". Ghouliani even uses it as a desk reference.

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

Just highlighting the important part that renders Dog's inevitable "well, I don't accept that" bollocks irrelevant. Dog has been demonstrably wrong about the law a lot recently and, well, this is from a law professor that was also an acting solicitor general. When it comes to authority of opinion and expertise in the subject matter, Dog needs to stick to conversations about licking his balls.

image.png.0f1378123cadc5b4c6091e883dc84759.png

 

image.png

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

The solicitor general's qualifications pale in comparison to Balllicker's. He got a degree in ignorant opinions at Trump U. Got an A+ on his Senior Thesis, "Truth Isn't The Truth". 

 

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

Just highlighting the important part that renders Dog's inevitable "well, I don't accept that" bollocks irrelevant. Dog has been demonstrably wrong about the law a lot recently and, well, this is from a law professor that was also an acting solicitor general. When it comes to authority of opinion and expertise in the subject matter, Dog needs to stick to conversations about licking his balls.

We're talking about serious legal exposure here, if...and it's a bit if.  

If we want to say that no person is above the law.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to see here -

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/nyregion/trump-organization-criminal-charges-vance.html

Manhattan D.A. Eyes Criminal Charges Against Trump Organization

excerpt -

The Manhattan district attorney’s office is considering pursuing criminal charges against the Trump Organization and two senior company officials in connection with Michael D. Cohen’s hush money payment to an adult film actress, according to two officials with knowledge of the matter.

A state investigation would center on how the company accounted for its reimbursement to Mr. Cohen for the $130,000 he paid to the actress, Stephanie Clifford, who has said she had an affair with President Trump, the officials said.

Both officials stressed that the office’s review of the matter is in its earliest stages and prosecutors have not yet made a decision on whether to proceed.

State charges against the company or its executives could be significant because Mr. Trump has talked about pardoning some of his current or former aides who have faced federal charges. As president, he has no power to pardon people and corporate entities convicted of state crimes.

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

Nothing to see here -

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/nyregion/trump-organization-criminal-charges-vance.html

Manhattan D.A. Eyes Criminal Charges Against Trump Organization

excerpt -

The Manhattan district attorney’s office is considering pursuing criminal charges against the Trump Organization and two senior company officials in connection with Michael D. Cohen’s hush money payment to an adult film actress, according to two officials with knowledge of the matter.

A state investigation would center on how the company accounted for its reimbursement to Mr. Cohen for the $130,000 he paid to the actress, Stephanie Clifford, who has said she had an affair with President Trump, the officials said.

Both officials stressed that the office’s review of the matter is in its earliest stages and prosecutors have not yet made a decision on whether to proceed.

Steffanie Clifford?  Isn't that the woman who the Most Faithful God-Fearing Man in the GOP was screwing while his wife recovered from giving birth to his child?  

Hmmm.  Paying off porn stars.  What a friend we have in Jesus.  

They might just have the documents they need for that investigation, after the search of Mr. Cohen's home, office and hotel.  Interesting.  

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

Bla bla bla

I would think that by now your arms are exhausted; I am quite sure that your spine is permanently hunched, and your ability to be conned remains uncompromised. Google carrying "water for elephants." Maybe, just maybe that will open your eyes, though I doubt it.

Dupe or troll? That is the question. Personally, I've often found you to make the occasional salient argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm left with troll.

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

Steffanie Clifford?  Isn't that the woman who the Most Faithful God-Fearing Man in the GOP was screwing while his wife recovered from giving birth to his child?  

Hmmm.  Paying off porn stars.  What a friend we have in Jesus.  

They might just have the documents they need for that investigation, after the search of Mr. Cohen's home, office and hotel.  Interesting.  

I think someone needs to produce not only his campaign finance records, but also his tax returns.

God love the power of subpoena.

Not that this will ever happen, but if it did, imagine the doggy styling that would ensue.

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

I think someone needs to produce not only his campaign finance records, but also his tax returns.

God love the power of subpoena.

Not that this will ever happen, but if it did, imagine the doggy styling that would ensue.

I would bet that Mr. Mueller has both already, and has had them for quite some time.  

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

image.jpeg

I have GOT to get Transitions installed in my Issons- Stone is SO on the cutting edge of eyewear, after all- incredible amounts of style in this crew!!!!

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

I would bet that Mr. Mueller has both already, and has had them for quite some time.  

I wish I could know for sure. A detailed F.O.I. request would be in the mail tomorrow.

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

I wish i could know for sure. A detailed F.O.I. request would be in the mail tomorrow.

I think this thing is coming to a head very soon.  The comments from Sen Corker and others about Sessions getting fired after the election make me think that those guys know that Mueller will drop shoes soon.  Who knows, tomorrow is a Friday....  

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

I wish I could know for sure. A detailed F.O.I. request would be in the mail tomorrow.

Sol is right. I'm sure the first order of business for Mueller's team was getting tax returns (personal and business) and campaign finance reports. They've had them from the beginning.

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

I think this thing is coming to a head very soon.  The comments from Sen Corker and others about Sessions getting fired after the election make me think that those guys know that Mueller will drop shoes soon.  Who knows, tomorrow is a Friday....  

And the day after is Saturday. Or should I say, the night after...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  O

14 hours ago, Dog said:

Correct, The judge does not determine that a crime was committed. I don't think we want Michael Cohen deciding what constitutes a crime.

So Cohen indicted himself? Wow, I suppose he will sue himself for malpractice next. 

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

I think this thing is coming to a head very soon.  The comments from Sen Corker and others about Sessions getting fired after the election make me think that those guys know that Mueller will drop shoes soon.  Who knows, tomorrow is a Friday....  

I think Mueller probably has enough evidence to drop an indictment on Jr, possibly Stone.  And there's plenty of criminal fraud at the Foundation, involving Trump and all the spawn. That's NY State AG investigation....they are prob keeping Mueller appraised of their status.

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

  O

So Cohen indicted himself? Wow, I suppose he will sue himself for malpractice next. 

You have to give Dog & Co. some credit here. If I were to shoot a complete stranger in cold blood, on Fifth Avenue, in front of 100 witnesses and a dozen or so T.V. cameras - and still get elected - you could hardly call that a crime

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, they rolled Kellyanne out there on CNN tonight. I suppose Rudy is taking a bit of a vacay. Can't imagine why. 

 

 I recommend attempting to watch what went down. Do not take that as recommending watching the whole thing, that would be masochism. A few minutes near the middle will do, I guess. 

Question: Is Kellyanne's game actually crafted to make the shows that criticize her boss utterly unwatchable? Make people retch so bad they won't dare watch or listen to the show, or even the station, for weeks, if ever again??

Serious question. What madness! 

   https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/24/kellyanne-conway-cohen-tape-cpt-vpx.cnn

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Jesus, they rolled Kellyanne out there on CNN tonight. I suppose Rudy is taking a bit of a vacay. Can't imagine why. 

 

 I recommend attempting to watch what went down. Do not take that as recommending watching the whole thing, that would be masochism. A few minutes near the middle will do, I guess. 

Question: Is Kellyanne's game actually crafted to make the shows that criticize her boss utterly unwatchable? Make people retch so bad they won't dare watch or listen to the show, or even the station, for weeks, if ever again??

Serious question. What madness! 

   https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/24/kellyanne-conway-cohen-tape-cpt-vpx.cnn

That bitch will not shut up. I lasted about 30 seconds before I had to call my cardiologist. The best thing we can do with Kellyanne is ignore her. Fuck she's annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Jesus, they rolled Kellyanne out there on CNN tonight. I suppose Rudy is taking a bit of a vacay. Can't imagine why. 

 

 I recommend attempting to watch what went down. Do not take that as recommending watching the whole thing, that would be masochism. A few minutes near the middle will do, I guess. 

Question: Is Kellyanne's game actually crafted to make the shows that criticize her boss utterly unwatchable? Make people retch so bad they won't dare watch or listen to the show, or even the station, for weeks, if ever again??

Serious question. What madness! 

   https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/24/kellyanne-conway-cohen-tape-cpt-vpx.cnn

As we’ve seen around here, it’s been a tough day or two to be a bullshit peddler, and a good day or two for those who believe that the rule of law is more important than party affiliation. I hope there are more days like this in our future. 

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

As we’ve seen around here, it’s been a tough day or two to be a bullshit peddler, and a good day or two for those who believe that the rule of law is more important than party affiliation. I hope there are more days like this in our future. 

Wow. You want a Special Counsel to investigate Hillary, her collusion with Russians (dossier), the campaign and her foundation. I love it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

And some more fun times for Pauly. Having a mistrial on those 10 counts, well, that may not work out so well.

A Lone Holdout Juror Actually Made It More Likely That Paul Manafort Will Go to Jail Even if Trump Pardons Him

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/paul-manafort-will-likely-go-to-jail-if-trump-pardons-him-thanks-to-a-lone-holdout-juror.html

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This has taken an interesting turn. Trump and Ghouliani both making threats about what will happen if the Trump is impeached: Everybody will be poor, the stock market will crash, and the Tiki-Torch militias will maraud. Is this the second stage of grief? Leaving Denial behind. Going thru Anger?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

A reimbursed payment never was illegal.

Wrong. Reimbursing someone for an illegal payment was illegal. It remains illegal now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Donnie is behaving like a kid that finally got busted red hand in cookie jar.

Not too many deranged twitter rants, he's probably been told by his  lawyers to shut the fuck up or go directly to jail.

See he's dissed Sessions saying he was never in control of DOJ, OTOH Sessions probably saw some of the shit piling up before Muller got Cohen and Manafort on the same day.

He's outraged at "flipping"....... thinks it should be outlawed,  I find that as funny as hell especially when you recall his verbose Lock Her Up chants..

Pecker is about to open Pandoras box,  if he hasn't already.

God only knows what sort of shit is in that safe, if what we see in front of us is bad, imagine the shit he didn't want anyone seeing.......ever.

Now Donny and Rudy are claiming if Donny gets impeached the world financial markets are going to implode....ummmm Donny you set that in motion a while back with your stupid tariffs.

Its probably not helpful that your buddies have implicated you directly and that has probably got markets nervous to begin with.......

Its going to be an entertaining next few weeks...that said I'm all popcorned out and over the  fuckwit,  he has been shown up to be a flim flam man, a shyster and we begin to see the glimmer of his smoke and mirrors charade.

Trump Foundation NEXT can't wait ! Juniors and Ivankas' turn to have a blowtorch applied.

The new word for today is:

schadenfreude
ˈʃɑːd(ə)nˌfrɔɪdə,German ˈʃɑːdənˌfrɔydə/
noun
 
  1. pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.
    "a business that thrives on Schadenfreude"
Link to post
Share on other sites

Onion...yet believable.

Trump Sons Frantically Burning Stacks Of Printed-Out Emails To Eliminate Paper Trail

x8qfzwytozfzobgslute.jpg

WASHINGTON—After learning that their father’s associates Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen were guilty of crimes and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation was continuing to expand, Eric and Donald Trump Jr. were reportedly frantically burning stacks of their printed-out emails Wednesday to eliminate their paper trail. 

“Okay, Eric, I think we melted down all the stuff we wrote from last year so now Mr. Mueller can’t never find it—time to start wrecking all the emails from this year,” said Trump Jr., who, along with his brother, had stayed up all night printing out every single email ever sent or received by either of the boys and setting the stacks of paper ablaze in a plastic garbage can to eliminate any evidence that could be used against them in an investigation. 

“We gotta type up copies of our texts so we can print them out and burn those, too—you can’t be too careful with the witch hunt. And once we finish burning all the evidence, we have to take pictures of our faces on Instagram and then print out those, too, and burn them so we can delete our identities. Then we have to leave and never come back, okay? We have to go to one of the small dots on a map where they can’t find us.” 

At press time, the Trump boys were attempting to erase any trace of their deliberate destruction of evidence by using masking tape to secure rocks to the top of the printer and pushing the device into the depths of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool where it would “never, ever be found.” 

https://politics.theonion.com/trump-boys-frantically-burning-stacks-of-printed-out-em-1828532224
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Nice spin, but this isn't the first time you've tried weaselling out of a fuck up and it's transparent what you're doing.

No-one was arguing the judge ascertains whether the actions confessed to are true (that is a prerequisite of accepting the plea deal, the breaking of which invalidates it). No-one was arguing that the judge ascertains that the defendant is guilty (the defendant admitting they are is a prerequisite of accepting the plea deal, the failure of which invalidates it). The facts you were wrong about were whether the actions confessed to are illegal and whether a judge has adjudicated that. The facts are that the judge needs to decide that the actions confessed to are illegal to accept the plea deal and that accepting the plea deal is an adjudication. 

You are wrong, Dog. Man up and move on. Or keep getting your ass handed to you to the amusement of others. Either works for me.

Bullshit...If the judge decides guilt or innocence in the case of a guilty plea there there would be no point in entering a plea at all. 

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

Bullshit...If the judge decides guilt or innocence in the case of a guilty plea there there would be no point in entering a plea at all. 

The judge doesn't decide "guilt or innocence". The judge decides, amongst other things, whether the actions being confessed to are illegal or not. They need to decide this before accepting the plea deal.

You are wrong, Dog. Man up and move on. 

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

The judge doesn't decide "guilt or innocence". The judge decides, amongst other things, whether the actions being confessed to are illegal or not. They need to decide this before accepting the plea deal.

You are wrong, Dog. Man up and move on. 

Dude...determining "whether the actions being confessed to are illegal or not" is the same thing as determining guilt or innocence.

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

Dude...determining "whether the actions being confessed to are illegal or not" is the same thing as determining guilt or innocence.

No, it is not. It is merely a legal judgement as to whether actions are legal or illegal according to the statutes. 

You're wrong, Dog. Man up and move on.

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

No, it is not. It is merely a legal judgement as to whether actions are legal or illegal according to the statutes. 

You're wrong, Dog. Man up and move on.

So it's not a determination that the crime actually occured, it's an acceptance that it occured.

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

So it's not a determination that the crime actually occured, it's an acceptance that it occured.

No, it is a determination that the actions confessed to are illegal. Contrary to your claim that the judge did not do such. 

You're wrong, Dog. Man up and move on.

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

No, it is a determination that the actions confessed to are illegal. Contrary to your claim that the judge did not do that. 

You're wrong, Dog. Man up and move on.

Wrong.... it is an acceptance that the actions confessed to are a crime. How to dumb this down enough for you.

The court does not consider all the specific circumstances of the event and make a determination. A plea deal bypasses all that. The court accepts the defendants admission and that the specific circumstances in the case do constitute a crime and deems him to be guilty.

And to bring this home that acceptance by the court of Cohen's guilty plea does not establish that a crime occurred for the purposes of any charges against Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites