SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    The Trump Presidency : Year III
Page 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... 348

Closed Topic Closed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
The Trump Presidency : Year III Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
This is an excellent article from Victor Davis Hanson. He sums up this whole circus quite well. His final sentence I hope is a harbinger of things to come:

"And now that it is over, we should not forget what it wrought and those who empowered it."



The Late, Not-So-Great Mueller Investigation

By Victor Davis Hanson

March 26, 2019 6:30 AM


It followed the Soviet style: ‘Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.’

Had Hillary Clinton just won the 2016 election, there would have been neither a Mueller investigation nor much talk of Russian collusion.

A losing Donald Trump would have slunk off to left-wing and Never-Trump ridicule and condemnation — and no investigation about collusion.

A defeated Trump would have posed no threat to the 16-year Obama-Clinton progressive project. President Clinton would have been content to let her unverified but lurid dossier rumors hound Trump for the rest of his life, with Trump as the supposed “loser” who had tried, in cahoots with the Russians, to unfairly beat Hillary, though he pathetically failed even at that.

Of course, a President Hillary Clinton herself may well have faced some Russian blackmail attempts. Kremlin fixers would have likely threatened to go public that their planted lies to Christopher Steele were gobbled up by President Clinton’s own private Fusion GPS hit team. In essence, the Russians would have claimed that they had fueled the dossier that wounded the Trump campaign — and expected some sort of quid pro quo, perhaps in Uranium One fashion.

Obama-administration bureaucrats — Attorney General Loretta Lynch, subordinate attorneys general such as Bruce Ohr and Rod Rosenstein, FBI grandees such as James Baker, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, intelligence kingpins such as John Brennan and James Clapper, and national-security officials turned intelligence sleuths such as Susan Rice and Samantha Power — would all have been competing on the basis of service beyond the call of duty for top jobs in the Clinton administration.

Among their swamp talking points would have been rival obsequious claims to have squashed Trump. Clinton-administration transition officials would have had to parcel out patronage by judging the relative help of people who had seeded Hillary’s Steele dossier around the government and the media, or fooled a FISA court to monitor Carter Page and thereby generated leaks that the Trump campaign was “under investigation,” or obstructed the Clinton email investigation, or placed an informant in Trump’s campaign, or unmasked the contents of surveilled conversations and leaked them to the press.

Translated, that means the hysteria that helped prompt the Mueller investigation was in part whipped up by those who had knowingly acted unethically or illegally during and also after the 2016 campaign. These Obama officials bet on the sure-thing but wrong horse and suddenly, after Nov. 8, 2016, feared that they were soon to be subject to lots of criminal exposure.

Assume that both the ruse of “collusion” and James Comey’s leaking gambit to prompt a special counsel’s investigation were thus the preemptive defenses of an assortment of crimes by Obama-era officials, such as lying to federal officials, conspiracy to obstruct justice, illegally leaking confidential or classified documents to the media, deceiving a FISA court, and myriad conflicts of interest. In other words, there were never any evidentiary reasons to appoint a special counsel other than to divert attention away from an array of wrongdoing. After 22 months, that fact finally became clear even to a largely partisan group of attorneys, once eager to become folk heroes by aborting the Trump presidency.

Let us hope both that Attorney General Barr can now turn to the real illegal behavior of an entire array of Obama-administration officials, and that the public at last can have access to unredacted documents that record their frenzied and illegal efforts.



The rest of the article:

https://www.nationalreview.com...tion-mueller-report/


-------------------------------
Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
- David Horowitz
 
Posts: 5149 | Location: WI | Registered: July 02, 2006Report This Post
Festina Lente
Picture of feersum dreadnaught
posted Hide Post
While we’re thinking Machiavellian thoughts, another quote from “The Prince”

“Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.”

President Trump has certainly not been well treated. I think justice is in order, not revenge.



NRA Life Member - "Fear God and Dreadnaught"
 
Posts: 8295 | Location: in the red zone of the blue state, CT | Registered: October 15, 2008Report This Post
Told cops where to go for over 29 years…
Picture of 911Boss
posted Hide Post












What part of "...Shall not be infringed" don't you understand???


 
Posts: 10920 | Location: Western WA state for just a few more years... | Registered: February 17, 2006Report This Post
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
Picture of Balzé Halzé
posted Hide Post
This was pretty clever by The New York Post.



Mueller Madness: The media pundits who got it most wrong
By Sohrab Ahmari March 25, 2019 | 8:24pm | Updated


Special counsel Robert Mueller has definitively put to rest the collusion theory of President Trump’s election. That’s not a little embarrassing for the many journalists, talking heads, celebrities and instant experts who spent more than two years furiously speculating about Moscow “pee-pee” tapes, treasonous rendezvous and the president’s imminent arrest.

The president’s haters no doubt wish to memory-hole collusion and move on to the next anti-Trump theory. But not so fast: We want to laurel the punditry “champion” — the one who peddled the most nonsensical nonsense, the wildest inanities, the weirdest theories and unsubstantiated stories.

That’s where your brackets come in.

Our contenders are divided into four groups (not unlike NCAA conferences): the print journalists, the cable TV talkers, the Twitterati and the network news reporters and “analysts.” And the brackets are seeded, with the most visible and influential figures contending against the lesser-known.

In the Print category, the top seed is the never-Trump honcho Bill Kristol, who in August predicted that “Mueller will find there was collusion between Trump associates and Putin operatives; that Trump knew about it; and that Trump sought to cover it up and obstruct its investigation.” Or not.

Pick your brackets — no, not for March Madness. This is Collusion Madness!

Kristol is closely followed by The Washington Post’s Max Boot, who in July wrote, “President Trump’s mantra is ‘no collusion,’ something he says as if sheer, mind-numbing repetition can make it true.” The Mueller probe reached precisely that conclusion — no collusion — and if anyone was wish-casting, it was Boot.

In the Cable category, our top seed is MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, in recognition of her seemingly interminable rants about the Kremlin not only electing Trump — with Trumpian “collusion,” of course — but practically running the US government. The second spot goes to her colleague Joe Scarborough, who likewise predicted Trump’s downfall at Mueller’s hands — right until the moment the special counsel shattered the fantasy.

Top among the Twitterati is Benjamin Wittes. The Brookings Institution fellow basked in the media glow that attended his Twitter predictions of Trump’s toppling. “Boom!” he would often tweet after news broke, with accompanying videos of cannons going off. A “Boom!” for BuzzFeed’s discredited story about Trump directing his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. And another “Boom!” for Cohen’s own instantly discredited testimony before Congress. And many others of the kind. The cannonballs all landed with a thud.

Wittes is followed, in the second spot, by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who traded his stellar academic reputation for anti-Trump crankery. In July 2017, he tweeted that when senior Democrats say, “There is evidence of both collusion and obstruction, you can take that to the bank. Trump beware!” But Tribes’ collusion checks bounced.

Finally, there are the Network collusion peddlers. The top seed is Alec Baldwin. Baldwin’s cringey impersonations of a clueless, jail-bound Trump revived his battered career and kept hope alive for liberals and Trump haters across the land. Will he reprise the role now that Trump isn’t heading for jail or impeachment?

The second seed goes to Joy Behar, who confidently predicted that Trump is “going to end up in prison.” The live audience at “The View” cheered. They should ­demand a refund.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/...o-got-it-most-wrong/


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country

Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan

"Once there was only dark. If you ask me, light is winning." ~Rust Cohle
 
Posts: 30299 | Location: Elv. 7,000 feet, Utah | Registered: October 29, 2012Report This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 19505 | Registered: July 21, 2002Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Several in our office filled the bracket out and we got Brennan, Boot, Colbert and DeNiro in the Final Four, with Brennan and Colbert in the championship. Brennan ultimately wins because as former CIA Director, he added "legitimacy" to all the loony tunes' talking points. Maddow made Elite 8, but really should have been on other side to end up at least in Final Four.


-------------------------------
Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
- David Horowitz
 
Posts: 5149 | Location: WI | Registered: July 02, 2006Report This Post
10mm is The
Boom of Doom
Picture of Fenris
posted Hide Post
Assume the Left Lies, and You Will Discover the Truth
By DENNIS PRAGER
National Review
March 26, 2019 6:30 AM

https://www.nationalreview.com...ollusion-allegation/

Reflections on the Trump–Russia collusion lie

From the beginning, I repeatedly said the charge that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election was a lie. The President’s description of it as a “witch hunt” was accurate.

I regularly acknowledged that I was putting my credibility on the line by stating that it was all a hoax. But how did I know that? After all, I wasn’t privy to any confidential intelligence.

One answer is I used common sense. The Trump–Russia collusion charge and the Donald-Trump-is-an-agent-of-the-Kremlin charge struck me — and tens of millions of other Americans — as absurd. Vladimir Putin’s influence on the 2016 election was negligible, and as president, Trump has been harder on Russia — in supporting Ukraine’s anti-Russian government, in fighting Syria’s pro-Russian government, and in confronting Iran’s pro-Russian regime — than Barack Obama was.

But the biggest reason I never believed the Russian collusion charge was that the charge emanated from the Left. And the Left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it.

The Left wanted to undo the 2016 presidential election from the day Trump won. So they made up the Russian collusion story. This was obvious to every conservative — except for “Never Trumpers,” who, with regard to Trump, have been indistinguishable from the Left and were therefore as prepared as any leftist to believe the Trump–Russia collusion tale. We conservatives knew that a) the Left wanted to invalidate the election and b) the Left lies when it is in their interest to do so. So we knew the collusion charge was a fabrication.

We also suspected that the collusion hoax may well have been an effort to divert attention from the real crimes here: American intelligence agencies’ being used to spy on a presidential candidate for the first time in American history; getting Clinton off the hook for her illegal use of a private server while secretary of state; her use of that office to enrich herself and her husband; and her destruction of the evidence once her hidden emails were subpoenaed.

If you always doubt a leftist claim, you will almost always be closer to the truth. I employed that rule in concluding the collusion story was a fraud, and it served me well.

Name the issue, and you will likely find a left-wing lie. The Left claims our universities are saturated by a “culture of rape.” Not only is that a lie, but deep down, leftists know it’s a lie. The proof? Every left-wing parent who speaks about the “culture of rape” on college campuses sends his or her daughter to college. As no parents would ever send their daughter to an actual rape culture, left-wing parents who send their daughters to college know it is not really a rape culture. They say it is a rape culture solely to buttress the feminist argument that American males are misogynists and to provide young women with the highest status in the left-wing value system: victim.

Although I haven’t been a student or taught at a college in many decades, that’s how I knew American colleges were not rape cultures. I knew it because the Left said they were. Again, just assume the Left is lying, and you will be close to arriving at the truth.

How do I know there are only two sexes? The most obvious reason is, again, common sense. But the second most powerful reason is the Left denies there are only two sexes and claims there is no such thing as sex, only subjective “gender.” Last week, a writer for the left-wing magazine The Nation defended the victory of two high-school male-bodied trans women who defeated all the female-bodied women in a Connecticut track competition — because, in his words, “trans women are in fact women.”

Now, we all know trans women are not in fact women, that they are biologically men who regard themselves as women. And in private life, I have no problem treating trans women as women if they look and dress female and take on a female name. But it is completely unjust to have them compete against born females in sports. They are not in fact women; they consider themselves women despite the facts. Again, assuming the Left is lying to advance its agenda leads one to truth.

When the Left tells us the Earth has twelve years left because of global warming, I assume they are not telling the truth. One bit of proof is that almost no one on the global-warming-will-destroy-life Left advocates the safest, cheapest, and most practical non-fossil-based source of energy: nuclear power. If they really believed life was existentially threatened by fossil-based fuel, they would be building nuclear reactors as fast they could make them. One reason I haven’t believed that man-made global warming will destroy the Earth is that the Left does.

So, while the latest left-wing lie – Trump–Russia collusion — is now exposed, there is little to cheer about. Without missing a beat, the Left — the Democratic party, the media and academia — will move on to another lie.

And there will be no soul-searching on the part of the media or the rest of the Left.

Why won’t there be? Because no leftist acknowledges the collusion story was a lie.

Truth has never been a left-wing value. Like “gender,” it is whatever you want it to be.




The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People again must learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. ~ Cicero 55 BC

The Dhimocrats love America like ticks love a hound.
 
Posts: 17459 | Location: Northern Virginia | Registered: November 08, 2008Report This Post
Get my pies
outta the oven!

Picture of PASig
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
Lying jackass. Just who do you think you're fooling with your bullshit?

Ex-CIA Director John Brennan admits he may have had 'bad information' regarding President Trump and Russia

You made yourself look like a fool. No one else did it for you. You did it. Period.


I hope he's the next one getting arrested.

Preferably at 3 am like they did Roger Stone.

Knock, knock motherf*cker! Mad


 
Posts: 33608 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: November 12, 2007Report This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
In an Aug 2018 interview w Rachel Maddow,

John Brennan (former CIA director) is asked if "before he left office on inauguration day" (20 Jan 2017), did he conclude that U.S. persons were successfully leveraged by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election.

Brennan answers "No"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


??? By 20 Jan 2017 there were two FISA warrants against Carter Page declaring that Carter Page was a Russian agent.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Brennan also discusses that there was a joint task force w CIA, NSA, and FBI to share information about Russian interference in the election

Brennan said he didn't see the Steele dossier until Dec 2016.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But the FBI thought Page was a Russian agent. The FBI working on a joint task force, and never shared that w the CIA. really ?

The FBI and CIA exchanged personnel. A CIA person sat in the offices of the FBI Counter intel division.

In June 2017, Peter Strzok bragged about getting a CIA coin w Brennan's signature on it.

https://themarketswork.com/201...n-brennan-interview/
 
Posts: 19505 | Registered: July 21, 2002Report This Post
Drug Dealer
Picture of Jim Shugart
posted Hide Post
From the Babylon Bee (satire): Big Grin




U.S.—According to sources from all across the country, the nation is still waiting for an apology for the media that pushed a fake news story connecting Donald Trump to Russia for two full years.

While those who supported Donald Trump were understandably a touch upset that they've been called Russian bots and Putin's puppets for years now, they reported they were certain that an apology would be coming shortly from the press that pushed the story every time they got a chance, regardless of the evidence.

"Any second now," one Trump supporter in Texas told reporters. "I'm absolutely confident that the press will own up to their errors and vow to learn from these mistakes. I mean, it's not like they'll just brush this all under the rug, move the goalposts, or somehow spin this into being our fault."

"That would be, like, totally fake news, and I trust that the American press is above that," he added.

Conservatives across the country were refreshing their newsfeeds and flipping through major media channels, awaiting the heartfelt apology from political pundits who dedicated their shows and commentary to the now-debunked Russiagate scandal 24/7.

Sources also confirmed that the nation is still waiting for an apology for the media's complicity in the Iraq War, the smearing of the Covington Catholic students, and the wild conspiracy theories about Brett Kavanaugh.



When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth. - George Bernard Shaw
 
Posts: 15471 | Location: Virginia | Registered: July 03, 2007Report This Post
goodheart
Picture of sjtill
posted Hide Post
Andy McCarthy on Mueller's abdication regarding "obstruction":

quote:
What a waste.
The most telling revelation in Attorney General William Barr’s letter about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s much-anticipated final report is that Mueller has punted on the main question he pursued for nearly two years of investigation: Did President Trump commit an obstruction offense?

The Barr letter gingerly states that, after making a “thorough factual investigation” into alleged instances of obstruction, Mueller “ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.” Since making a prosecutorial judgment was Mueller’s job, that means he defaulted. What did we need him for?

Not only that, but Mueller determined that it would be better for the attorney general to make the prosecutorial judgment. So, for the millionth time, what the hell did we need a special counsel for? If the Justice Department, in Mueller’s judgment, was perfectly well-suited to make the call, how could there possibly have been a conflict so profound that it was necessary to bring in a special counsel in the first place? A special counsel, mind you, who recruited his staff from the Justice Department, transferred the cases he brought to Justice Department components, and, now, has ultimately delegated his decision-making responsibility to the Justice Department.

The lack of a so-called collusion case is no surprise, as I contended in my weekend column. As far as President Trump and his campaign were concerned, there never was a case of the only kind of actionable collusion that would have been of interest to a federal prosecutor: knowing complicity in Russia’s cyber-espionage operation to influence the 2016 campaign.

The refusal to draw a conclusion on obstruction is notable in contrast. At bottom, this is a retreat on the push by at least some members of Mueller’s staff for a novel theory of obstruction, which held that the president could be charged based on exercises of his constitutional powers (e.g., firing the FBI director) if a prosecutor decided his motivation was improper. Regarding this retreat, it is worth exploring the effect of the Barr memo — the June 2018 memorandum that Barr, when he was a former attorney general rather than the incumbent one, submitted to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy AG who was the acting AG supervising Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation.

In the memo, Barr argued that the obstruction theory Mueller’s staff appeared to be pursuing was constitutionally infirm and practically unworkable. Based on statutory law, the Constitution, court precedent, and longstanding Justice Department guidelines, Barr posited that an indictment of a president for obstruction could properly be based only on plainly corrupt acts — not constitutionally ordained exercises of presidential prerogative — that involve tampering with evidence and witnesses.

In the end, then, Mueller had a choice to make: Either (a) accept that Barr’s interpretation of obstruction law was correct, or (b) recommend an indictment based on the more expansive interpretation of obstruction that his staff seems to have been pursuing and dare Barr to reverse him. The special counsel couldn’t bring himself to decide. In effect, he accepted Barr’s construction of the law, but he declined to admit that he was doing so. After all, if Barr was right all along, what were the last 22 months about?

To be sure, Barr gave Mueller a face-saving way out. The Barr memo catalogues several ways in which Mueller’s obstruction theory would unconstitutionally strip the president’s Article II powers and flout well-settled Justice Department rules of statutory construction. Yet, in announcing the decision to decline prosecution, Barr’s letter refrains from rehearsing these flaws. Instead, without mentioning his memo, the attorney general emphasizes its position that, even on the Mueller theory’s own terms, obstruction could not be proved.

In his memo, Barr observed:

Even if one were to indulge Mueller’s obstruction theory, in the particular circumstances here, the President’s motive in removing [FBI director James] Comey and commenting on [the investigation of fired national-security adviser Michael] Flynn could not have been “corrupt” unless the President and his campaign were actually guilty of illegal collusion.

This is obviously true. That is, even assuming for argument’s sake that a president could be prosecuted for otherwise lawful executive acts that a prosecutor claimed had been corruptly motivated, it would still be incumbent on the prosecutor to prove corrupt motivation beyond a reasonable doubt. If Trump is not guilty of the underlying collusion offense, then any actions he took that arguably had a negative impact on the investigation — even if we found such acts foolish or unseemly — could be explained by his frustration over the baselessness of the investigation and its debilitating effect on his capacity to govern. If the president has not colluded, a prosecutor could not establish a corrupt intent to conceal guilt.

This reasoning is echoed in Barr’s letter on Mueller’s report:

The Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding.

At the end of the same paragraph, the attorney general again stresses that corrupt intent “would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense,” under the Justice Department’s guidance for prosecutorial charging decisions. The letter adds that the president’s contested actions “took place in public view,” which also cuts against the suggestion of corrupt intent. Classic obstructive acts of mutilating evidence and bribing or intimidating witnesses are done in the shadows.

Barr’s letter also points out that each of the president’s contested acts was within his Article II authority and that none of them “had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding” that is cognizable under the obstruction laws. These are also themes of Barr’s memo.

That is to say, Mueller had to know that, if he left the ultimate charging decision to Barr, the outcome would not be in doubt — not because Barr was appointed by Trump, but because Barr had already laid out, in scholarly detail, the legal and evidence-based rationale for rejecting obstruction charges.

In the greater scheme of things, the special counsel’s dereliction would be of little moment were it not for his gratuitous pronouncement about what it all means. To divert attention from his failure to render a prosecutorial judgment, Mueller stated (Barr’s letter quotes him):

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” That’s a political statement, not a prosecutorial statement.

Prosecutors never “exonerate” people. It is for others to say whether a person has been exonerated. All prosecutors can say is whether there is enough evidence to charge or there is not. If there is not, then you don’t file charges, period. To cite the obvious example, you didn’t hear Mueller say, “I am exonerating President Trump on the collusion claims.” He simply found insufficient evidence to establish a crime under the governing legal standards, so he declined to file charges and left it to the commentariat to sort out what it all means.

On obstruction, however, Mueller declined to apply the law to the facts. That was the only job he was hired to do. Whether he thinks the Justice Department’s decision not to charge the president is an exoneration or something less is no more relevant than what you or I think about it.

What a waste.


Link


_________________________
“ What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”— Lord Melbourne
 
Posts: 18018 | Location: One hop from Paradise | Registered: July 27, 2004Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I wonder now about Jeff Sessions. What got him out of the game?


There is something good and motherly about Washington, the grand old benevolent National Asylum for the helpless.
- Mark Twain The Gilded Age

#CNNblackmail #CNNmemewar
 
Posts: 706 | Location: Seacoast in USA | Registered: September 24, 2007Report This Post
Festina Lente
Picture of feersum dreadnaught
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DJ_Boston:
I wonder now about Jeff Sessions. What got him out of the game?


lacking these:

This message has been edited. Last edited by: feersum dreadnaught,



NRA Life Member - "Fear God and Dreadnaught"
 
Posts: 8295 | Location: in the red zone of the blue state, CT | Registered: October 15, 2008Report This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
I don't wonder about that cowardly POS Sessions. As far as I am concerned he can rot in hell with the leftists he spent two years protecting.

Two years ago when he was sworn in he had the chance to apply "the rule of law" (as he so often talked about). He declined to. Fuck him. I hope he never shows his face in public again.
 
Posts: 10635 | Registered: June 13, 2003Report This Post
Edge seeking
Sharp blade!
posted Hide Post
The "Russia! Russia! Russia!" hoax was a great success, and may have been instrumental in the dems winning the house in 2018. Something like 42% of Americans believe that DT and the Russians! fixed the election resulting in his win and thus his presidency is illegitimate. 533K articles written about DT and Russian! collusion. The dupes bought it hook, line, and sinker. They were confident they could remove him with it, but DT isn't your normal republican.

What is the next swamp conspiracy to take him out between now and 2020? Tax returns? They've seen them and not leaked them. That must mean there's nothing there. They may have already shot their wad and must be reeling at DT's staying power. They are really going to have to get creative in the next takedown attempt. Their behavior indicates they are the minority and have little chance in a legitimate election.
 
Posts: 7437 | Location: Over the hills and far away | Registered: January 20, 2009Report This Post
Live Slow,
Die Whenever
Picture of medic451
posted Hide Post
This is the best one yet!




"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."
- John Wayne in "The Shootist"
 
Posts: 3440 | Location: California | Registered: May 31, 2004Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by mbinky:
I don't wonder about that cowardly POS Sessions. As far as I am concerned he can rot in hell with the leftists he spent two years protecting.

Two years ago when he was sworn in he had the chance to apply "the rule of law" (as he so often talked about). He declined to. Fuck him. I hope he never shows his face in public again.


I have been wondering, is Session just Mr. Magoo stupid, or is he on the side of the never-Trumpers trying to take down DJT.


-c1steve
 
Posts: 4041 | Location: West coast | Registered: March 31, 2012Report This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
McConnell held a senate vote on Green New Deal procedural vote.

Results: it failed 57 to 0

All REPs voted No and 4 DEMs also voted No.

(Jones, Sinema, Manchin, King)

All other DEMs voted "present"
 
Posts: 19505 | Registered: July 21, 2002Report This Post
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
Picture of Balzé Halzé
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sdy:


All other DEMs voted "present"


In other words, they all voted "Yes."


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country

Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan

"Once there was only dark. If you ask me, light is winning." ~Rust Cohle
 
Posts: 30299 | Location: Elv. 7,000 feet, Utah | Registered: October 29, 2012Report This Post
Bad dog!
Picture of justjoe
posted Hide Post
I think the next few months could be very dramatic. Machiavelli said that if you move against the king, you'd better take him out, because if you just wound him, he will come back at you with a vengeance.

Trump is a fighter. He needed to wait-- and wait-- until Mueller issued his report. Now he can act. He knows all the major players who attempted the coup. We all know who they are at the top: Obama and Hillary.

I don't know what will happen, but I'm pretty sure that, one way or another, it will be a rough ride.


______________________________________________________

"You get much farther with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone."
 
Posts: 11106 | Location: pennsylvania | Registered: June 05, 2011Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... 348 

Closed Topic Closed

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    The Trump Presidency : Year III

© SIGforum 2024