Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Mueller - "Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy.The Russian govt's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious."

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

So proud of Lewandowski today for exposing the fraud that is today's democratic party.

He would make a great Senator for New Hampshire if you want food fights in the cafeteria or I could see a  juvenile acting Senator Lewandowski shooting spitballs on the Senate floor. A little smart#$& he is.

Edited by lazyike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have any New Hampshire people here? Will "lying and obstructing for Trump" have a chance as a winning platform in your state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Do we have any New Hampshire people here? Will "lying and obstructing for Trump" have a chance as a winning platform in your state?

According to  @HellToupee you don’t have to be from New Hampshire to vote there, so you can widen your inquiry to all of the surrounding states. 

Edited by timschochet
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

According to  @HellToupee you don’t have to be from New Hampshire to vote there, so you can widen your inquiry to all of the surrounding states. 

That’s correct , you just have to say you’re from NH.Heck  I own property in NH and might vote up there myself 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That’s correct , you just have to say you’re from NH.Heck  I own property in NH and might vote up there myself 

We do things differently in California. You have to be a resident (not necessarily a legal one) but once you are you can go to as many polling places as you want. Last time I went to 6 before I got tired. It’s a good thing too, otherwise Trump would have taken the state.

Share this post


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

We do things differently in California. You have to be a resident (not necessarily a legal one) but once you are you can go to as many polling places as you want. Last time I went to 6 before I got tired. It’s a good thing too, otherwise Trump would have taken the state.

It should be your civic duty on Election Day to bring the pickup truck to Home Depot and give a few fellas a ride to the polls

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roadkill1292 said:

Do we have any New Hampshire people here? Will "lying and obstructing for Trump" have a chance as a winning platform in your state?

Straight owned Nadler.  It was a very bed day yesterday for the Dems.

Share this post


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

It should be your civic duty on Election Day to bring the pickup truck to Home Depot and give a few fellas a ride to the polls

I tried this last election, but there wasn’t anyone outside my Home Depot. Fortunately when I went to the polls they were in that parking lot so I took them to nine more polling places. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Straight owned Nadler.  It was a very bad day yesterday for the Dems.

Nadler wasn't perfect, and it was easy to criticize him. And for that matter, all of the Democrats.

But apparently you're OK with Corey Lewandowski admitting to lying to the public, admitting that the President committed obstruction of justice. You think that's just fine. Shame on you.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What really pisses me off is that Nadler didn't immediately place Lewandowski under contempt. There has to be consequences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Nadler wasn't perfect, and it was easy to criticize him. And for that matter, all of the Democrats.

But apparently you're OK with Corey Lewandowski admitting to lying to the public, admitting that the President committed obstruction of justice. You think that's just fine. Shame on you.

Sorry, no obstruction of justice

Share this post


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

What really pisses me off is that Nadler didn't immediately place Lewandowski under contempt. There has to be consequences.

Exactly 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Sorry, no obstruction of justice

Well, just as with climate change, and the supposed mental illness of homosexuals, your viewpoint is contradicted by the facts.

The Mueller Report lists ten different examples of President Trump having obstructed justice. This is one of them. He asked Corey Lewandowski to pressure Jeff Sessions to end the Mueller investigation.  That's the very definition of obstruction of justice, whatever you believe.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Well, just as with climate change, and the supposed mental illness of homosexuals, your viewpoint is contradicted by the facts.

The Mueller Report lists ten different examples of President Trump having obstructed justice. This is one of them. He asked Corey Lewandowski to pressure Jeff Sessions to end the Mueller investigation.  That's the very definition of obstruction of justice, whatever you believe.

I am aware it is listed as "possible" obstruction of justice but it is simply not a FACT as much as you want to believe.  Sorry.  

Furthermore, your opinions don't mean much to me as it is clear you just state things as facts to try and help your opinion.  For example, calling me a bigot yesterday shows that your calls of Trump being a bigot and racist mean nothing and are laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

I am aware it is listed as "possible" obstruction of justice but it is simply not a FACT as much as you want to believe.  Sorry.  

Furthermore, your opinions don't mean much to me as it is clear you just state things as facts to try and help your opinion.  For example, calling me a bigot yesterday shows that your calls of Trump being a bigot and racist mean nothing and are laughable.

I called you a bigot, accurately, because you stated that homosexuality is a mental illness and you equated it to cancer. And when I asked you to clarify just in case I misunderstood you, you stated yes that was exactly your opinion and what you meant.

That opinion, as stated, makes you a bigot.  This fact will be obvious to any person reading this post. I don't get any joy in writing it. In fact, it saddens me. I sincerely hope that knowledge and experience cause you to eventually change your mind.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

I called you a bigot, accurately, because you stated that homosexuality is a mental illness and you equated it to cancer. And when I asked you to clarify just in case I misunderstood you, you stated yes that was exactly your opinion and what you meant.

That opinion, as stated, makes you a bigot.  This fact will be obvious to any person reading this post. I don't get any joy in writing it. In fact, it saddens me. I sincerely hope that knowledge and experience cause you to eventually change your mind.

Bigot - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions

Who exactly is the bigot here?  Looks like you!

Another definition of bigot - a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people - again does not apply to me at all

You look really silly here Tim I hope one day you learn from this and be better.

Edited by Don't Noonan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question posed here.  Is it bigotry to be intolerant toward those holding different opinions towards a bigot?  

Edit- not calling anyone a bigot just asking the question philosophically 

Edited by dkp993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Interesting question posed here.  Is it bigotry to be intolerant toward those holding different opinions towards a bigot?  

Edit- not calling anyone a bigot just asking the question philosophically 

"There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."

  • Like 4
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Interesting question posed here.  Is it bigotry to be intolerant toward those holding different opinions towards a bigot?  

Edit- not calling anyone a bigot just asking the question philosophically 

The racists and bigots in this forum have been doing this for years.  I'm proudly intolerant of them.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

The racists and bigots in this forum have been doing this for years.  I'm proudly intolerant of them.

Please list those that are racists in this forum. TIA Back up terrible comments like that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Please list those that are racists in this forum. TIA Back up terrible comments like that.

He won't.  He knows it is an extremely stupid thing to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dickies said:

The racists and bigots in this forum have been doing this for years.  I'm proudly intolerant of them.

So is that a yes then?  So you’re bigot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posts in this forum have devolved to the point where participating is pointless. I really hope it's all schtick, because the alternative is truly sad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

So is that a yes then?  So you’re bigot?

:shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Interesting question posed here.  Is it bigotry to be intolerant toward those holding different opinions towards a bigot?  

Edit- not calling anyone a bigot just asking the question philosophically 

No, but people that are already bigoted like to make that claim.  Thankfully the most prominent one doesn't seem to be here anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:
4 hours ago, timschochet said:

Nadler wasn't perfect, and it was easy to criticize him. And for that matter, all of the Democrats.

But apparently you're OK with Corey Lewandowski admitting to lying to the public, admitting that the President committed obstruction of justice. You think that's just fine. Shame on you.

Sorry, no obstruction of justice

Quote

a. Obstructive act. The President’s effort to send Sessions a message through Lewandowski would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.

The President sought to have Sessions announce that the President “shouldn’t have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel” and that Sessions was going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections.” The President wanted Sessions to disregard his recusal from the investigation, which had followed from a formal DOJ ethics review, and have Sessions declare that he knew “for a fact” that “there were no Russians involved with the campaign” because he “was there.” The President further directed that Sessions should explain that the President should not be subject to an investigation “because he hasn’t done anything wrong.” Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign, with the Special Counsel being permitted to move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Just like being gay means you're infected with a cancerous disease and you need treatment. I hear conversion therapy works wonders. 

What's worse is your intolerance of the opinion that Trump did nothing wrong and Lewandowski is an American hero for proving it yet again.

That Joe allows you to post your disgusting, bigoted drivel here day after day is definitive proof of his liberal bias toward the socialist agenda to destroy all the good Donald J. Trump has done for this county through his hard work and sacrifice, and Joe's disdain for those who truly want to Make America Great Again, who tolerate daily abuse and personal attacks only to get timeouts for mildly rebuking those who don't believe that anything critical of His Holiness is Fake News.

It's blatantly obvious to anyone willing to step out of the liberal echo-chamber and hear something other than their own prejudiiced views parroted back at them exactly who the biased bigots are and who are the real freedom-loving patriots. 

I mean, if t's not about fake Russian collusion, selling out the country for personal gain, stealing military funds for the wall, exposing CIA assets, ruining the economy, the inability to not lie, or running all non-Trump loyalists out of government as criminals, they simply don't want to hear it.

The only reason I come back here is the hope that my love for the Constitution and the first amendment might one day rub off and cause some poor soul to take a break from their Trump Derangement Syndrome long enough to appreciate the opportunities the white man and European culture have made possible for them to enjoy.

Now excuse me while I go do my patriotic duty and exercise my God-given right to walk around the Mexican Walmart with my loaded AR-15 to show them how much I love immigrants. Well, as long they wait in line just like everyone else (but my ancestors) had to do and they aren't from ####-hole counties. 

I'm so glad I can final be proud of my country. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I miss the good old days when a typical lowlife like John Winger could infiltrate a Soviet army base. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2019 at 9:52 PM, Amused to Death said:

"There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."

The Dutch are the worst. Their crimes are nunerous but the worst may be to have inflicted Heineken on the world.

:shudder:

Not that Bud or Light beer in general is any better, mind you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rove! said:

Because Flynn reneged on his promise to testify. I don't think obstructifying is a good path right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Because Flynn reneged on his promise to testify. I don't think obstructifying is a good path right now.

 Think it was mostly because the prosecution couldn’t explain what behavior actually constituted a crime. 

https://threader.app/thread/1152675120072314880

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have a real time, with tons of people watching, from the office of the presidency, Trump trying to work an angle with a foreign government to get dirt on his political rival.

He seems to be willing to use government resources in order to carry out his goal of winning the next election.

How is this any different from dangling future policy changes to Russia in exchange for dirt on Hillary?

Answer: it's not.  He did it.

Folks within government are covering up for him now, and folks close to him were covering up for him then.

A tigers stripes don't change.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

So we have a real time, with tons of people watching, from the office of the presidency, Trump trying to work an angle with a foreign government to get dirt on his political rival.

He seems to be willing to use government resources in order to carry out his goal of winning the next election.

How is this any different from dangling future policy changes to Russia in exchange for dirt on Hillary?

Answer: it's not.  He did it.

Folks within government are covering up for him now, and folks close to him were covering up for him then.

A tigers stripes don't change.

Yep. Been obvious the whole time too. Question is how much other stuff like this has he done. I'd be it's a lot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gr00vus said:

Yep. Been obvious the whole time too. Question is how much other stuff like this has he done. I'd be it's a lot.

He's obstructed justice - clearly.  He's broken campaign finance laws, repeatedly.  He's tampered with witnesses.  He's solicited help from foreign adversaries publicly and privately.  He's paid people off to stay quiet for his political benefit.  

We know he's committed crimes.  He just has enough power to avoid punishment for them right now.  And MAYBE actually prosecuting him will be too much of a tearing of the public fabric that he may get pardoned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He's obstructed justice - clearly.  He's broken campaign finance laws, repeatedly.  He's tampered with witnesses.  He's solicited help from foreign adversaries publicly and privately.  He's paid people off to stay quiet for his political benefit.  

We know he's committed crimes.  He just has enough power to avoid punishment for them right now.  And MAYBE actually prosecuting him will be too much of a tearing of the public fabric that he may get pardoned.

Don't forget the zillions of times he's broken the emoluments clause.  If he's not prosecuted, he's just laid out the blue print for someone as corrupt as him, but actually somewhat intelligent to really abuse the system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rove! said:

 Think it was mostly because the prosecution couldn’t explain what behavior actually constituted a crime. 

https://threader.app/thread/1152675120072314880

It says it right there:

Quote

Finally - there is confirmation that the defense will not be calling General Flynn as a witness.

"The defense does not intend to call Mr. Flynn as a witness"

Mr. Fog at least has the decency to post the opinion, though frustratingly it's in Scribd which is a PITA to use.

Look at pages 24-26 - the court says there is "no competent evidence" - and everything that's listed there was dependent on Flynn.

Now Flynn not cooperating is definitely a problem for the DOJ, but also for Flynn. And I'll add that post-Mueller strangely enough the DOJ has been fairing pretty poorly - they lost the Craig case, and they did not bring prosecutions against Podesta or Weber.

The bigger problem for Flynn though is that he has already confessed to everything he's been accused of in his conviction.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


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

 Think it was mostly because the prosecution couldn’t explain what behavior actually constituted a crime. 

https://threader.app/thread/1152675120072314880

 

I’ve been in those arguments, and what you’re saying is not really what it means. They’re arguing over jury instructions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gr00vus said:

Don't forget the zillions of times he's broken the emoluments clause.  If he's not prosecuted, he's just laid out the blue print for someone as corrupt as him, but actually somewhat intelligent to really abuse the system.

That’s the real problem here. If we allow this, there really is no bottom and we really can kiss goodbye to any kind of good government from this point forward. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Why would we not send Pence to an ally's inaugural?

To not-so-subtly show the incoming administration that US support needs to be earned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Why would we not send Pence to an ally's inaugural?

"But, now you come to me, and you say: 'Don, give me Pence.' But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me Godfather."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Why would we not send Pence to an ally's inaugural?

Because we like them?

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


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

Oh my god. There are reasons I suppose the Russians could have known that without a direct line to Trump’s inner circle, but the obvious explanation is direct coordination between the circle and the Kremlin. 

Edited by Mr. Ham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Why would we not send Pence to an ally's inaugural?

Because we like them?

You guys are missing the obvious.  There would be women present and Mother would not be happy.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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.   Restore formatting

  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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.