BladeRunner
Footballguy
We'll see come November.zoonation said:He won’t. He’s been exposed as totally incompetent. He’s a joke.
We'll see come November.zoonation said:He won’t. He’s been exposed as totally incompetent. He’s a joke.
Isn't 'Slapdash' an alias for your real name? If so, then I would suggest that getting all butt hurt about alias' seems a bit hypocritical. If not, and 'Slapdash' is actually your real name, then carry on your conversation with the FBG self-appointed board cop and link manager.Slapdash said:Imagine firing up an alias to do this.
This whole administration is a bad nightmare of what a terrible administration should be...SoBeDad said:"I don't really feel like arguing with this negro.”
Stone being treated very unfairly again.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RiegerReport/status/1284673373734350848
Stone told a local supporter that he reaffirmed his relationship with Jesus Christ. I don't know what's in his heart, but I have my doubts.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/miami.cbslocal.com/2020/07/14/roger-stone-jim-defede-prison-sentence-commuted-interview/amp/
That sounds awesome! Win-Win.I have a suspicion that Trump is going to end up “winning” in November, under extremely unsettling circumstances. If that happens, I know people talk about it, but we’re making arrangements to leave the country formerly known as the United States. It’s currently under the thumb of a dictator, and four more years will seal the end of the Republic.
If you simply observe what’s occurring, it’s quite clear Trump is aware of his criminality and is obstructing multiple state prosecutions by installing cronies. This kind of rampant abuse of power was never supposed to happen here, and yet here it is.
Top candidates for our family are Ireland and New Zealand. Luckily, I have a job where relocating is an option, and will execute the option if Trump isn’t ousted.
We have repeatedly asked people to be more cool toward each other.That sounds awesome! Win-Win.
I don't even know how to respond to you GB other than it is amazing to me these are really your views. I was upset when Obama won but I made it through okay, you will too.Trump continues to obstruct justice, kowtow to Putin, thank pedophila pimps, deny science, and unleash private mercenary armies in cities. It’s unraveling badly for everyone. Thankfully, more of Trump’s “impenetrable” base seems to realize it.
Amazing and the claims aren’t accurate. Be careful though football season is too close and he reported Tony and he got 2 months. Have a great weekend.I don't even know how to respond to you GB other than it is amazing to me these are really your views. I was upset when Obama won but I made it through okay, you will too.
Can you imagine an adult reporting that after what flies here. A guy calls Matt Gaetz a child molester and kelps on chugging along because he’s on the team. ShamefulAmazing and the claims aren’t accurate. Be careful though football season is too close and he reported Tony and he got 2 months. Have a great weekend.
None of these are facts, just your opinions. Which of course you are entitled to have.I would advise that you broaden where you get information
It's happening. It's fact.
- Obstructing: Trump has ordered Barr to force prosecutors out of the 3 State AG offices investigating him in the last month. Berman in SDNY is the most public firing and described the outer and its corruption in House testimony. As an aside, Barr also retaliated against Cohen by placing him back in prison, as determined by a federal judge. That's more abuse of power though.
- Putin: Putin placed bounties on US soldiers heads, and tested missile defense systems, and Trump has said nothing. Before you attempt to deny the bounties, look at the level of detail in the open source reporting here.
- Ghislaine Maxwell: Trump wished her well the other day, which is extremely unsettling and frankly suspicious given similarities in language to others with potential leverage over him (Flynn, Stone, Manafort)
- Deny Science: History will show, and the data certainly does, that Trump's denial of fact and constant lying in regard to COVID cost tens of thousands of lives (maybe into the hundreds of thousands) and delayed economic recovery. Later generations will feel the effects from client denial.
- Even Fox News calls "crackdown" in Portland illegal and Unconstitutional. We have no idea if private contractors have been procured, because the soldiers illegally wear private identifiers and not those designated by any legitimate military or law enforcement authority.
But his opinions are factually based and backed up. Yet 3 people make claims as if what he said was so bad...all without offering much more than mocking and nuh uh.None of these are facts, just your opinions. Which of course you are entitled to have.
I never called my opinions facts. You backed your opinions with opinions of others. It has not been proven Russia put a bounty on U.S. soldiers. Trump followed the lead health experts like any President should do. In fact, he suggested wearing masks when Fauci said it wasn't required. He also blocked travel from other countries to Democrats outspoken hate, which some have now admitted was right. The Portland unrest again falls in Democratic run states, it is awful and I say this as someone who grew up in Oregon and went to college in Portland. Trump is the perfect President to be in charge now as he will not put up with out of control riots. God bless him.You’re not entitled to call facts opinions, and your opinions facts. I backed mine.
Uhm...you're the one that's going to move out of the US, not us.Thankfully I have a good marriage, because I imagine this is the feeling someone has when they decide the only option left is divorce.
Great! Are you going to renounce your citizenship too? I mean, if you're committed then you need to commit 100%.I’m really not kidding. I don’t think the rest of the country can reconcile with what amounts roughly to the Trump base. Because when there is no agreement on what facts are, there can be no consensus.
Tony got 2 months for basically congratulating the guy for being in a position to have choices? DamnAmazing and the claims aren’t accurate. Be careful though football season is too close and he reported Tony and he got 2 months. Have a great weekend.
That's fine, but I'm sure the Democrats don't care.I didn’t say I’d leave in 2016. I voted for Trump, mainly to cancel my wife’s Hillary vote. I have made inquiries at work about leaving if Trump wins in 2020. I have talked to my wife and had serious discussions about feasibility. I think there is a better than even chance we will go if Trump wins.
And I suspect rather than thinking about losing a skilled worker with a high paying job who pays a lot in taxes, you’ll be more inclined to think you owned a lib. And that’s fine.
As far as renouncing my citizenship, of course not. I’ll merely renounce those who have diminished its worth.
Apparently, just another day. Be safe out there.Tony got 2 months for basically congratulating the guy for being in a position to have choices? Damn
It seems like something you hear a lot on the Left but rarely ever see anyone follow through on it although many posters in here that spend a lot of time bashing Trump don’t live in the US....it’s possible they moved cause of him I guess? The Obama years were brutal but I don’t ever remember saying I was monitor another country, seems extreme in my opinion.Uhm...you're the one that's going to move out of the US, not us.
You and all those people who said they would move if Trump won in 2016 who are all still here, anyways.
If you were that concerned you would have moved out during the Obama years.My views are in line with unprecedented erosion of political norms and institutions. We must have a completely different idea of the propriety of the Administrative Branch and it’s purpose, because it has in equal parts been abused to further person interests, and abused minorities.
It’s hard given the totality of our history to say that’s not America. But it’s not the America many bled for coming out of the Jim Crow South and segregation. It’s an America the best of us renounced and worked hard to impede.
2 months! Holy ####. What did he say to earn that?Tony got 2 months for basically congratulating the guy for being in a position to have choices? Damn
Given history here...probably more than what hets claimed. Often times anyone complains about a suspension, a mod comes in...shows the actual offense and its far different than the story told.2 months! Holy ####. What did he say to earn that?
Read the post and cut the nonsense that people are claiming something different. Jesus you never stopGiven history here...probably more than what hets claimed. Often times anyone complains about a suspension, a mod comes in...shows the actual offense and its far different than the story told.
It’s on the previous page.2 months! Holy ####. What did he say to earn that?
No. Actually this one was mostly just the mod being sick of it. Tony said something about it being a win if Ham moved away. People instantly reported it. Moderator was sick of asking people to be cool and he got suspended. I wouldn't have done it that long. But I also understand when the moderators are just sick of the never ending tool behavior.Given history here...probably more than what hets claimed. Often times anyone complains about a suspension, a mod comes in...shows the actual offense and its far different than the story told.
I read that as win win meaning either his guy wins the election or ham is in a position to have choices and move somewhere he desires. Everyone doesn’t have those choices I certainly don’t. My 2 cents but I’ll stay out of itNo. Actually this one was mostly just the mod being sick of it. Tony said something about it being a win if Ham moved away. People instantly reported it. Moderator was sick of asking people to be cool and he got suspended. I wouldn't have done it that long. But I also understand when the moderators are just sick of the never ending tool behavior.
I can see that too. I think mostly it just speaks to how the moderators are sick of the toolish back and forth.I read that as win win meaning either his guy wins the election or ham is in a position to have choices and move somewhere he desires. Everyone doesn’t have those choices I certainly don’t. My 2 cents but I’ll stay out of it
Fair enough...my point about past complaints stands. Often someone claims they got suspended for something small and the mod comes in and states it was worse than claimed.No. Actually this one was mostly just the mod being sick of it. Tony said something about it being a win if Ham moved away. People instantly reported it. Moderator was sick of asking people to be cool and he got suspended. I wouldn't have done it that long. But I also understand when the moderators are just sick of the never ending tool behavior.
Unbelievable, even when talking with the owner you feel the need to justify your post and get in the last word.Fair enough...my point about past complaints stands. Often someone claims they got suspended for something small and the mod comes in and states it was worse than claimed.
Thanks for the input...totally necessary to post such things. I had a civil few posts with the owner. I think such exchanges are allowed just fine.Unbelievable, even when talking with the owner you feel the need to justify your post and get in the last word.
Read the post and cut the nonsense that people are claiming something different. Jesus you never stop
McCabe’s FBI subordinate Peter Strzok — who earlier texted that the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation was like an “insurance policy” in case of Trump’s election which “[w]e’ll stop” and he could “SMELL the Trump support” at a Walmart — intervened on January 4 to pull the memo terminating Flynn’s investigation.
The next day, January 5, Strzok attended an Oval Office Meeting with President Obama, National Security Adviser Rice, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Director Comey. Among the topics were intercepted calls between Flynn and Russia’s Ambassador discussing sanctions. Strzok’s notes indicate Vice President Biden suggested that Flynn somehow violated a 216-year-old, possibly unconstitutional, and never successfully prosecuted, law called the Logan Act.
All of this — White House discussions, the taping of Flynn, Flynn-Russia conversations — were highly classified. They were never supposed to go public. If no one commits a felony by leaking them, this whole situation likely disappears. It is hard to believe anyone in Trump’s White House, or even in the last days of Obama’s presidency, would try to prosecute Flynn for a “Logan Act” violation of a possibly unconstitutional law he probably didn’t even violate, and that hasn’t been successfully prosecuted in its over two centuries of existence.
If this law — created to stop private citizens from intervening in foreign affairs — applied to incoming presidential teams, likely Joe Biden, Susan Rice, and most of the incoming international teams of Presidents Obama, Bush, Reagan, and Clinton would be guilty. Under our Constitution, it is the job of presidential campaigns to announce how they will change policy. So, unless someone commits the leak against Flynn, this all would be resolved internally. It is never transformed into a public Russia-Trump conspiracy tearing our country apart. But as we all now know, and history recorded, that is not what happened.
Five days after that the January 5 Oval Office meeting, I met Halper in Virginia. I didn’t think much about that meeting until Durham’s team requested I review my records. Because Halper had seemed increasingly erratic in our dealings, making it difficult to advance my doctoral work, I requested to start recording our conversations back in 2015 to document his guidance.
When I listened to my January 10, 2017 recording a few weeks ago, I expected to find boring academic discussions. Instead I found something else.
In the recording Halper laid out what was about to happen to Flynn, something he had no independent reason to know. “I don’t think Flynn’s going to be around long,” he said, adding, “the way these things work” was that “opponents… so-called enemies” of Flynn would be “looking for ways of exerting pressure…that’s how it builds.”
Flynn, he said, would be “squeezed pretty hard,” and Flynn’s “reaction to that is to blow up and get angry. He’s really ####ed. I don’t where he goes from there. But that is his reaction. That’s why he’s so unsuitable.” ...
One of the remaining tasks of investigators is determining the precise source of the leaks about Flynn to the Washington Post. These leaks were a critical inflection point. They revived the Trump-Russia investigations that were about to die and stopped Flynn before he could expose the fabrications and incompetence behind it all.
This is not a classic whistleblowing situation, wherein the confidentiality of the leaker should ideally remain sacrosanct in light of an important, socially-beneficial disclosure. This is the opposite: a leak seemingly manufactured with the intent of creating a media firestorm around a figure the FBI had already investigated, to no effect. The FBI’s key “confidential” source was already naming himself in a major global newspaper as he openly pushed Russia conspiracy theories. ...
My former supervisor, using his booming voice and bold ideas, likes to be the center of attention. Yet for two years his allies with powerful intelligence, political, and media ties seem to have done the impossible. They made this massive figure almost completely disappear.
The Mueller and DOJ IG investigations of these scandals relied in large part on input from DOJ and FBI officials linked to potential abuses — including the FBI’s Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Lisa Page and DOJ’s Andrew Weisman. When Congress grilled long-time FBI leader Mueller about why he didn’t interview “Steven Schrage” or others who might expose DOJ or FBI improprieties, he stammered: “n those areas, I am going to stay away from…I stand by that which is in the report and not so necessarily with that, which is - which is not in the report.”
Given Mueller’s stated preference to “stay away” from those with information that might implicate members of his team and the DOJ IG’s reliance on DOJ insiders, it’s not surprising that people like me who were in a position to expose the Russiagate narrative were not interviewed.
What is surprising for anyone valuing journalistic standards, is that those under government investigation for abuses of power have so easily avoided hard questions. Some have even been given media contractsto spin their own actions. Imagine if Nixon’s allies appointed the Watergate burglars to investigate themselves, then placed them in nightly news positions where they could attack anyone questioning them. Politics shouldn’t destroy our principles.
There is too much to fully detail here, but further revelations – and they are forthcoming – will make these moves even more damning. How Cambridge Four members and Carter Page came together is a comedy of errors rivaling Dumb and Dumber. An FBI source had information that should have stopped Carter Page’s invasive surveillance in August 2016 before it started. A covert anti-Trump operative sought to be appointed to one of the world’s most powerful positions that could be used to undermine the president.
Evidence suggests undisclosed famous officials, including Republicans, tried to cover up their links to Steele’s smears. The IG report contains statements by Crossfire officials that appear factual inaccurate, inherently inconsistent, or highly improbable, raising questions about whether they risked prosecution to conceal their acts.
“I don’t remember.” That should be the official, trademarked motto of the government officials involved in these events. It is what former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates responded under oath this past Wednesday.
She had been asked if Vice President Biden raised the Logan Act in their Oval Office discussion of Flynn on January 5, 2017, seven days before the felony leak on Flynn’s alleged “Logan Act” violation was published. Flynn’s appeals hearing is on Tuesday, and Vice President Biden and President Trump are on the ballot in less than 90 days. These issues should be beyond politics. They should have been dealt with before now. They would have, if Washington insiders could “remember” things, like how to provide legally-mandated documents under our Constitution or their duties to the public.
Ummm...Actually, you can pick and choose which lines are true. Only parts of the information were submitted. If you have information refuting that...that the whole document was included...please post it.Believe it.
You cannot "pick and choose" which lines of a document are true or not.
if any part of it cannot be validated, it, in itself, cannot be submitted as "validated" evidence.
If you believe that part of a document is true, you have to submit evidence to validate that, in itself...
The original document is out.
What does Ummm mean?@Opie
Ummm...Actually, you can pick and choose which lines are true. Only parts of the information were submitted. If you have information refuting that...that the whole document was included...please post it.
I don't believe you are accurately reflecting what went on in the FISA Warrant or the investigation at all. Please cite where you are getting this.
How so? Is this your opinion? Or the NYTimes? Wapo? Who's saying they didn't hold up well and based on what?Doesn't say much about how they'll rule necessarily, but Flynn's lawyers didn't hold up very well with the full DC Circuit today. Outside Henderson and Rao (the two who found in favor of Flynn in the 3-judge panel), it's not clear that Flynn's position has a lot of additional support.
Very intelligent thread from people who actually understand what's going on in the questioning.Doesn't say much about how they'll rule necessarily, but Flynn's lawyers didn't hold up very well with the full DC Circuit today. Outside Henderson and Rao (the two who found in favor of Flynn in the 3-judge panel), it's not clear that Flynn's position has a lot of additional support.
They got asked legal questions and didn't have very good answers. They contradicted the law, contradicted themselves and have taken a position so extreme that they were forced into arguing, in court, in front of actual judges, that even if a prosecutor was on videotape being bribed to drop a case the judge in the case could not investigate.How so? Is this your opinion? Or the NYTimes? Wapo? Who's saying they didn't hold up well and based on what?
Before Sullivan even holds his hearing to inquire about the Justice Department's motivation for seeking dismissal, what's the evidence already in the record that it's a political sham? That seems like a leap the appellate court will not make.Let's hope the DC Circuit calls out the Justice Department for what the motion to dismiss really is - a political sham.
So it's a paradox?Before Sullivan even holds his hearing to inquire about the Justice Department's motivation for seeking dismissal, what's the evidence already in the record that it's a political sham? That seems like a leap the appellate court will not make.
Flynn is not arguing that the dismissal should be granted because it's not a sham. He's arguing that the dismissal should be granted without regard to whether it's a sham.So it's a paradox?
If they were to find that it was a political sham they'd be implicitly accepting the plaintiff's arguments and would, therefore, have to find in his favor and dismiss the case against him?
Right. But IF they did find it a a political sham it would be absent evidence from the trial court. Which, in turn, would mean they could accept Flynn's arguments re: Sullivan -- which also lack a fact trail at this point since Sullivan hasn't actually held the hearing in question yet.Flynn is not arguing that the dismissal should be granted because it's not a sham. He's arguing that the dismissal should be granted without regard to whether it's a sham.
The question of whether the requested dismissal a sham is therefore not before this appellate court, and it is unlikely to state an opinion about it.
I was pretty sure you were making a joke, but I couldn't tell what it was. (I read your post as if you meant to say "defendant" instead of "plaintiff," but I still couldn't follow it since Flynn isn't arguing that the request for dismissal is a political sham.)(The bit about if you have to explain it, it probably wasn't very funny comes to mind here.)
True, the DC Circuit will determine whether Judge Sullivan has the discretionary authority to conduct a more thorough "investigation"* into the propriety of the motion to dismiss being filed after two guilty pleas have been entered and prior to the Flynn's sentencing. They will not review or discuss whether political motives are in play. Those political motives could come up if, and when, Sullivan's "investigation" is authorized by the DC Circuit and resumes before Judge Sullivan.Maurile Tremblay said:Before Sullivan even holds his hearing to inquire about the Justice Department's motivation for seeking dismissal, what's the evidence already in the record that it's a political sham? That seems like a leap the appellate court will not make.