Jump to content

Recommended Posts

the truth

Let's suppress knowledge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-department-must-disclose-secret-mueller-grand-jury-evidence-to-congress/2020/03/10/db60e338-3c66-11ea-baca-eb7ace0a3455_story.html

 

It is the only way forward for the little don.

No, he could tie his children to the railroad tracks and then blame a highly successful woman.  Take your choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, hasher said:

the truth

Let's suppress knowledge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-department-must-disclose-secret-mueller-grand-jury-evidence-to-congress/2020/03/10/db60e338-3c66-11ea-baca-eb7ace0a3455_story.html

 

It is the only way forward for the little don.

No, he could tie his children to the railroad tracks and then blame a highly successful woman.  Take your choice.

Trump's Judges will never let their man be found guilty of anything. Now it's payback time for those lifetime appointments to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

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

Trump's Judges will never let their man be found guilty of anything. Now it's payback time for those lifetime appointments to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

Now you are taking the Trump route of insulting judges who rule against you. Unfortunately we are stuck with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch for a long time. This is something we will have to live with. Hopefully Bader-Ginsburg will live long enough for a different President to be in place. 

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

Now you are taking the Trump route of insulting judges who rule against you. Unfortunately we are stuck with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch for a long time. This is something we will have to live with. Hopefully Bader-Ginsburg will live long enough for a different President to be in place. 

They haven't yet ruled against me, and probably never will, but there is a real bad dead fish smell coming from Kavanaugh, who is in no way qualified to be on that bench.

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

Now you are taking the Trump route of insulting judges who rule against you. Unfortunately we are stuck with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch for a long time. This is something we will have to live with. Hopefully Bader-Ginsburg will live long enough for a different President to be in place. 

Pack the court with two new lefty judges - it's only fair. 

And consider that when SCOTUS tossed the heart of the voting rights act as being no longer needed, the southern states within hours moved to disenfranchise minorities. 

So pack the Court - do it

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

Pack the court with two new lefty judges - it's only fair. 

And consider that when SCOTUS tossed the heart of the voting rights act as being no longer needed, the southern states within hours moved to disenfranchise minorities. 

So pack the Court - do it

FDR tried that. Didn't work, and a bad idea IMHO

- DSK

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

Would it matter to you?  

No.  Dog's standard for evidence is very very high.  When it's against a Republican.  And he'll keep trying to steer this conversation in another direction given the chance.  It's what bullshitters like Dog do.

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

Would it matter to you if Schiff was lying about it?

Answering a question with a question.  Straight out of the bullshitter play book.

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

Would it matter to you if Schiff was lying about it?

Of course.  Would it matter to you if he were telling the truth?  Just admit what we all here know, that as Grrr just stated, your standards are different depending the party being accused.

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

Of course.  Would it matter to you if he were telling the truth?  Just admit what we all here know, that as Grrr just stated, your standards are different depending the party being accused.

Well just in case you are having difficulty with the obvious, Schiff is lying. He has no beyond circumstantial evisence of collusion.

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

Well just in case you are having difficulty with the obvious, Schiff is lying. He has no beyond circumstantial evisence of collusion.

I'm not the one here with difficulty with the obvious.  What you're saying simply is not true.  

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

Well just in case you are having difficulty with the obvious, Schiff is lying. He has no beyond circumstantial evisence of collusion.

Could you please cite multiple headlines/articles which can conclusively prove this is true?  It seems, as usual, that you are holding democrats to a different factual standard than republicans.

*LOCK HER UP*........

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

Could you please cite multiple headlines/articles which can conclusively prove this is true?  It seems, as usual, that you are holding democrats to a different factual standard than republicans.

*LOCK HER UP*........

No....Only a moron would believe that Schiff has evidence of Trump's guilt and is sitting on it.

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

No....Only a moron would believe that Schiff has evidence of Trump's guilt and is sitting on it.

Right.  So you're choosing to apply your finely honed opinion in this case..... because DemocRATS.  Whereas you demand signed confessions if it might reflect poorly on Republicunts.  Got it.

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

Right.  So you're choosing to apply your finely honed opinion in this case..... because DemocRATS.  Whereas you demand signed confessions if it might reflect poorly on Republicunts.  Got it.

One doesn't really need a finely homed opinion to discern that Adam Schiff's beyond circumstantial evidence is bullshit. A fucking moron can see it.

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

WTF does Schiff have to do with the OP??  

He's already avoided that question once.  You're unlikely to have any better luck with the bullshitter.

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

WTF does Schiff have to do with the OP??  

Schiff supposedly has evidence that hasn't been made public - if so, that's indeed pertinent.   If not - then Schiff probably shouldn't have suggested that there was. 
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2018-02-14/ample-evidence-of-trump-campaign-russia-collusion-says-top-intel-dem

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Schiff supposedly has evidence that hasn't been made public - if so, that's indeed pertinent.   If not - then Schiff probably shouldn't have suggested that there was. 
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2018-02-14/ample-evidence-of-trump-campaign-russia-collusion-says-top-intel-dem

 

Yes, but the OP is about suppressing knowledge and forcing the judicial to provide docs.  Shif has 0 to do with that..  Unless he is the prosecutor which would lead us down an entirely different tangent...   

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

Yes, but the OP is about suppressing knowledge and forcing the judicial to provide docs.  Shif has 0 to do with that..  Unless he is the prosecutor which would lead us down an entirely different tangent...   

I dunno - if the Judiciary is forced to provide docs that are relevant to the case, then shouldn't ALL documentation that's relevant be included in that provision?   If Schiff continues to suggest that "he knows because" - then isn't it reasonable to ask him to cough up the docs that he claims support that opinion?   It's a slight tangent, but, still within the field of fire. 

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

WTF does Schiff have to do with the OP??  

The OP is about Mueller's evidence wrt Trump/Russia. Well, Schiff could put the matter to bed by disclosing his evidence.

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

The OP is about Mueller's evidence wrt Trump/Russia. Well, Schiff could put the matter to bed by disclosing his evidence.

Which has nothing to do with the original post, so you're simply engaging in rank whataboutism.

You are REALLY slipping dog.  Between the blatent lies in the other post today and the deflecting here..... have you got the coronavirus or something?  You had an off day the last couple days in fact.

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

Which has nothing to do with the original post, so you're simply engaging in rank whataboutism.

You are REALLY slipping dog.  Between the blatent lies in the other post today and the deflecting here..... have you got the coronavirus or something?  You had an off day the last couple days in fact.

The OP is about releasing evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. My post is about the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
59 minutes ago, Dog said:

The OP is about releasing evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. My post is about the same thing.

It might be wise to wait for the redacted version of the Muller Report before you dig your grave too deep.

Dog never bothered himself to read the released Mueller report and has spent the last year stating various untruths about it. Why would he change?

- DSK

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

Dog never bothered himself to read the released Mueller report and has spent the last year stating various untruths about it. Why would he change?

- DSK

He won't. But he does need to be reminded regularly of his Academy Award level intransigence.

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

I don’t understand the concept of a hypothetical question. For that reason I am responding  with this ignorant question:

Is it too much to ask to see it first?

Edited for clarification 

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

Dog never bothered himself to read the released Mueller report and has spent the last year stating various untruths about it. Why would he change?

- DSK

Cite one.

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

your lie about papadopolous yesterday falls under that, because he was a mueller footnote

I made a mistake and acknoledged it. Help him out, cite a lie I told about the Mueller report.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Schiff supposedly has evidence that hasn't been made public - if so, that's indeed pertinent.   If not - then Schiff probably shouldn't have suggested that there was. 
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2018-02-14/ample-evidence-of-trump-campaign-russia-collusion-says-top-intel-dem

 

Could it be that the evidence is so damning to the very framework of democracy that it has been deemed classified, so that Adam Schiff is legally unable to share it publicly?  

Just a thought.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sail611 said:

Could it be that the evidence is so damning to the very framework of democracy that it has been deemed classified, so that Adam Schiff is legally unable to share it publicly?  

Just a thought.

 

That's a valid thought, and would inform the decision of public release - but, IMHO, it still should be delivered to the appropriately cleared members of the committee, in closed session.  

 

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

That's a valid thought, and would inform the decision of public release - but, IMHO, it still should be delivered to the appropriately cleared members of the committee, in closed session.  

 

The current Senate Republicans would never ever convict any Republican President of anything

Where's the "strength of our democracy" now?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's a valid thought, and would inform the decision of public release - but, IMHO, it still should be delivered to the appropriately cleared members of the committee, in closed session.  

 

How do we know it has not already been released to them.?  If that were the case, Adam Schiff is the chair of the committee, which I would assume makes him the spokesman.  The other democrats on the committee have Schiff presenting the talking points, so have no need to speak on the issue. The republicans on the committee would do what they have been doing with all of the evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.  They would bury their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist, or they would acknowledge it exists but state loudly and frequently that it isn't really evidence of any wrongdoing at all.  We've seen that from the republicans in congress before, and no doubt will see it again.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The current Senate Republicans would never ever convict any Republican President of anything

 Where's the "strength of our democracy" now?

 

It's right where it's always been.  

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Looks to me like the guards are laughing and helping tear it apart.

 - DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It's right where it's always been.  

It is completely dependent on the quality of the people in government - otherwise the Constitution is just "A Piece Of Paper Which Bears The Signatures..."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...