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

49 minutes ago, Dog said:

Did I say that? I'm just pointing out how some here get duped.

Couple or three oddballs agree with you and all the rest of us professional and business folks have been duped.

Right.

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

Couple or three oddballs agree with you and all the rest of us professional and business folks have been duped.

Right.

Do you understand that Sean's cartoon is bullshit?

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

Everyone is talking impeach or prosecution. Please enumerate the "crime" allegedly committed.

if you can't figure that out by now, why would any of us bother with writing it, again?

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

Did I say that? I'm just pointing out how some here get duped.

I can think of one in particular. 

It's a refreshing question, isn't it? Does Dog know he's lying?

I believe he does. So far, trying to prove this hypothesis, the main evidence is the way he keeps twisting and avoiding, which of course is rather subjective. It's not an exact science

-DSK

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

It's a refreshing question, isn't it? Does Dog know he's lying?

I believe he does. So far, trying to prove this hypothesis, the main evidence is the way he keeps twisting and avoiding, which of course is rather subjective. It's not an exact science

-DSK

Do you understand that Sean's cartoon is bullshit?

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

Maybe this will help the reality challenged amongst us...

“If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” (the actual statement)

We did not say so.

Ergo, we did not have confidence that the president did not commit a crime.

 

^This is why I come here. Fucking hilarious..

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

if you can't figure that out by now, why would any of us bother with writing it, again?

What the lefty MSM legal eagles say and what the articles governing the judiciary, legislative and executive branches seem to be at odds. BUT, continue your lefty circle jerk.

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

What the lefty MSM legal eagles say and what the articles governing the judiciary, legislative and executive branches seem to be at odds.

Is that a rationale thought?

This little democratic republic is designed to have a balance of power.  Read about Venice.  It was not dissimilar.

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

Everyone is talking impeach or prosecution. Please enumerate the "crime" allegedly committed.

“I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors.”

— Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by NBC News, on February 12, 1999.

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

“I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors.”

— Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by NBC News, on February 12, 1999.

A complete hypocrite.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

A complete hypocrite.

It is quite difficult to achieve perfection but the turtle seems to have done it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerseyguy said:

It is quite difficult to achieve perfection but the turtle seems to have done it. 

I doubt there is anything perfect about him. Evil.

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

“I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors.”

— Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by NBC News, on February 12, 1999.

"If this body [Congress] determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role . . . because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."

- Sen Lindsay Graham, 1999

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

I can not name a public person I respect less.

Mitch McConnell. He has singlehandedly smeared more shit on our Constitution than any other person. Whenever he takes his final breath, if there is any justice left in the world, it will be a breath punctuated by choking on the flatus of poor people. 

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

Mitch McConnell. He has singlehandedly smeared more shit on our Constitution than any other person. Whenever he takes his final breath, if there is any justice left in the world, it will be a breath punctuated by choking on the flatus of poor people. 

Agreed. When the history books are written about the demise of democracy in the US, Mitch will be viewed as the Darth Vader of the story.

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

“I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors.”

— Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by NBC News, on February 12, 1999.

A complete hypocrite.

Not if you read what Senator McConnell meant, as opposed to what he said.

1 hour ago, Sean said:

“I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice by a Democrat are not high crimes and misdemeanors.”

— Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by NBC News, on February 12, 1999.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Olsonist said:
30 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Is it right to call it "comedy" when they aren't trying to be funny?

Surely you can’t be serious.

I most certainly am.

While Dog is not trying to be funny, he schtick is hilarious.

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

There can only be one insult comic Dog. 

 

 

 

That is fucking hilarious!

Link to post
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The special counsel Robert Mueller ignited a firestorm of controversy on Wednesday by recommending that millions of Americans read.

Mueller, seemingly oblivious to the uproar he was about to create, repeatedly commented that there was valuable information available to the American people only by reading a long book.

At the White House, sources said that Donald J. Trump was furious about Mueller’s statement because he interpreted the special counsel’s pro-reading message as a thinly veiled attack on him.

Speaking to reporters later, on the White House lawn, Trump made it clear that Mueller’s exhortation to read had fallen on deaf ears.

“I’ve never read any of my books, and I certainly don’t intend to read his,” 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

President Trump on Saturday announced the departure of top White House attorney Emmet Flood, who represented the administration during Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 22-month Russia probe.

Trump tweeted that Flood will step down on June 14.

"Emmet Flood, who came to the White House to help me with the Mueller Report, will be leaving service on June 14th," Trump wrote. "He has done an outstanding job – NO COLLUSION - NO OBSTRUCTION! Case Closed! Emmet is my friend, and I thank him for the GREAT JOB he has done."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-announces-exit-top-wh-lawyer-emmet-flood

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is basically declaring war on the world that doesn't agree with him. With every idiot move he makes, he loses 2 more countries that might (might) have backed him up.

 Right now who can he depend on besides......................................... OK who can he depend on? Not Mexico. Not Canada. He's pissed off the Brits, The Ozzies, the Chinese, The Japanese wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. The Scandinavian countries look upon him with condescension. The Russians will eat him alive. The Caricom nations don't want to even talk to him.......  India and Pakistan both hate him, and that's one thing they actually agree on. African and South East Asian countries are "Shit holes"..... Turkey?..... Israel?............ Saudi Arabia?.............

 That's a pretty slim pickin'........

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which Christopher Steele hides under his desk....

"Christopher Steele, a former Russia expert for the British spy agency MI6, will not answer questions from prosecutor John Durham, named by Barr to examine the origins of the investigations into Trump and his campaign team, said the source close to Steele’s London-based private investigation firm, Orbis Business Intelligence".

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steele/british-ex-spy-will-not-talk-to-us-prosecutor-examining-trump-probe-origins-source-idUSKCN1SY20K

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

In which Christopher Steele hides under his desk....

"Christopher Steele, a former Russia expert for the British spy agency MI6, will not answer questions from prosecutor John Durham, named by Barr to examine the origins of the investigations into Trump and his campaign team, said the source close to Steele’s London-based private investigation firm, Orbis Business Intelligence".

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steele/british-ex-spy-will-not-talk-to-us-prosecutor-examining-trump-probe-origins-source-idUSKCN1SY20K

Why would a foreign national participate in a Trump (a corrupt, venal criminal money launderer) led witch hunt?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

In which Christopher Steele hides under his desk....

"Christopher Steele, a former Russia expert for the British spy agency MI6, will not answer questions from prosecutor John Durham, named by Barr to examine the origins of the investigations into Trump and his campaign team, said the source close to Steele’s London-based private investigation firm, Orbis Business Intelligence".

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steele/british-ex-spy-will-not-talk-to-us-prosecutor-examining-trump-probe-origins-source-idUSKCN1SY20K

Looks like you better investigate Hillary some more

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Durham "investigation" is going to fizzle out fairly quickly. It really was only intended as a momentary distraction.

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

Devin is going to pick up some new evidence tonight from the White House. It’s gonna blow the lid off of this whole thing. A real humdinger. Imagine. 

I cant wait to read the report. 

Rep Jim Jordan was on the talk shows this morning, with a rapid-fire patter of lies.

They don't want to investigate, as that will reveal more of the putrid facts. They want spin and misdirection, and of course to blow the dogwhistle. The game is to call for investigation, to fling fantasy accusations, to spew insults, and of course repeat it all often and loudly.

-DSK

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

Rep Jim Jordan was on the talk shows this morning, with a rapid-fire patter of lies.

They don't want to investigate, as that will reveal more of the putrid facts. They want spin and misdirection, and of course to blow the dogwhistle. The game is to call for investigation, to fling fantasy accusations, to spew insults, and of course repeat it all often and loudly.

-DSK

The Doggy Style. 

But think of the children in that basement of the pizza parlor!

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

Rep Jim Jordan was on the talk shows this morning, with a rapid-fire patter of lies.

They don't want to investigate, as that will reveal more of the putrid facts. They want spin and misdirection, and of course to blow the dogwhistle. The game is to call for investigation, to fling fantasy accusations, to spew insults, and of course repeat it all often and loudly.

-DSK

If they do investigate, it will be interesting to see how they handle people ignoring request for testimony.  

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

Devin is going to pick up some new evidence tonight from the White House. It’s gonna blow the lid off of this whole thing. A real humdinger. Imagine. 

I cant wait to read the report. 

Speaking of evidence, Adam Schiff is still sitting on his beyond circumstantial evidence that Trump was in bed with the Russians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

I think the Durham "investigation" is going to fizzle out fairly quickly. It really was only intended as a momentary distraction.

It will be as successful as the investigation into the 5 million illegal votes in 2016.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bridhb said:

If they do investigate, it will be interesting to see how they handle people ignoring request for testimony.  

In related news.....

"WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors rebuffed a judge’s order to release by Friday highly classified transcripts of discussions that Michael T. Flynn, the president’s former national security adviser, had with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/politics/flynn-kislyak-wiretap.html

 

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

In related news.....

"WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors rebuffed a judge’s order to release by Friday highly classified transcripts of discussions that Michael T. Flynn, the president’s former national security adviser, had with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/politics/flynn-kislyak-wiretap.html

 

And Mr. Barr covered up the Raygun adminstration's corruption.

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

In related news.....

"WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors rebuffed a judge’s order to release by Friday highly classified transcripts of discussions that Michael T. Flynn, the president’s former national security adviser, had with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/politics/flynn-kislyak-wiretap.html

 

Is ignoring constitutional rules good now? Checking for a friend.

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

In related news.....

"WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors rebuffed a judge’s order to release by Friday highly classified transcripts of discussions that Michael T. Flynn, the president’s former national security adviser, had with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/politics/flynn-kislyak-wiretap.html

 

Do you think that prosecutors should ignore that judge’s order or comply with it in this case?

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

Wasn't it was just yesterday you said the government wanted complete transparency in this investigation? 

What changed bullshitter? New orders, or a new talking point to get us to respond to you so you can jerk off with glee?

No...The administration wants transparency in the investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax and it's the purveyors of the hoax and their media cohorts that are resisting. In this case it is the court that wants more transparency and its Flynn's prosecutors who are resisting.

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

Do you think that prosecutors should ignore that judge’s order or comply with it in this case?

I think prossecutors should comply with judge's orders unless they believe it to be illegal to do so.

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

I think prossecutors should comply with judge's orders unless they believe it to be illegal to do so.

That’s an answer to another thought provoking question. What about this case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When a participant in the US legal system is given an order by a judge or policeman and the participant believes the order is illegal, I believe the proper procedure is to comply with the order in a timely manner and describe objections at the first reasonable opportunity. 

Failure to comply is a crime for which exoneration may or may not be granted. 

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

Good. So it is safe to say that you are alright with prosecutors determining what the law is, instead of judges?

Ultimately a judge would decide so no, that would no be safe to say. 

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

Ultimately a judge would decide so no, that would no be safe to say. 

So because the judge signed off on it’s legality and ordered it in this case would it be safe to say you support that information’s release in this case?

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

So because the judge signed off on it’s legality and ordered it in this case would it be safe to say you support that information’s release in this case?

Don’t be silly. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

I think prossecutors should comply with judge's orders unless they believe it to be illegal to do so.

So if a judge orders you to go to jail for 3 years for whatever reason, you can just refuse to go because you don't believe it to be legal?

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

So because the judge signed off on it’s legality and ordered it in this case would it be safe to say you support that information’s release in this case?

Yes. Don't you think they should provide the transcripts?

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

So if a judge orders you to go to jail for 3 years for whatever reason, you can just refuse to go because you don't believe it to be legal?

WTF?

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

I think prossecutors should comply with judge's orders unless they believe it to be illegal to do so.

^

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

^

And from that you got this?...."So if a judge orders you to go to jail for 3 years for whatever reason, you can just refuse to go because you don't believe it to be legal?

Do you think the prossecutors should produce the Flynn transcripts?

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

And from that you got this?...."So if a judge orders you to go to jail for 3 years for whatever reason, you can just refuse to go because you don't believe it to be legal?

Do you think the prossecutors should produce the Flynn transcripts?

Of course. They've been ordered to do so by a duly appointed judge of the federal court.

And prosecutors is spelled differently in the states, than it apparently is in whichever former soviet bloc country you're currently posting from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

Of course. They've been ordered to do so by a duly appointed judge of the federal court.

And prosecutors is spelled differently in the states, than it apparently is in whichever former soviet bloc country you're currently posting from.

Good, then we are in agreement. Wonder why he's doing it, maybe he's smelling entrapment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Barr and the Trumpsters that are resisting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"His press conference captured his report perfectly. It was an effort to allude to possible crimes without, in fairness to the accused, clearly and specifically stating those crimes. Mueller knew that was incrimination by omission. By emphasizing he could not clear Trump of criminality, Mueller knew the press would interpret that as a virtual indictment.

What is concerning is not that each of his three decisions clearly would undermine Trump or Barr but that his decisions ran against the grain for a special counsel. The law favored the other path in each instance. Thus, to use Mueller’s own construction, if we could rule out a political motive, we would have done so. This is why Mueller must testify and must do so publicly"....Jonathan Turley

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/446457-mueller-must-testify-publicly-to-answer-three-critical-questions

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

"His press conference captured his report perfectly. It was an effort to allude to possible crimes without, in fairness to the accused, clearly and specifically stating those crimes. Mueller knew that was incrimination by omission. By emphasizing he could not clear Trump of criminality, Mueller knew the press would interpret that as a virtual indictment.

What is concerning is not that each of his three decisions clearly would undermine Trump or Barr but that his decisions ran against the grain for a special counsel. The law favored the other path in each instance. Thus, to use Mueller’s own construction, if we could rule out a political motive, we would have done so. This is why Mueller must testify and must do so publicly"....Jonathan Turley

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/446457-mueller-must-testify-publicly-to-answer-three-critical-questions

Turley makes Dershowitz look principled.....

Link to post
Share on other sites