Comments are closed.

  1. stogy

    Wow! The Republicans just manage to hang on to a Congressional seat they’ve held for almost 50 years. A huge, win, says the President, despite his own role in slicing some 10 – 15% off the 60 – 70% vote margins regularly recorded in polls over the past couple of decades in the district.

    What a great result. You should celebrate, Alex. No, really.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Hal_10000

    In fairness, Stogy, the Republicans should be happy. This was a race the Democrats threw EVERYTHING into.  $50 million in spending, national coverage, constant media attention and a candidate who gaffed like her maiden name was Trump.  And they still couldn’t pull it off.

    It’s what I’ve been saying for years and what continues to be true: you cant’ win elections by being “not the Republican”.  Clinton lost the election when she made it about Trump.  And Assoff lost this one when he made it about Trump.

    Thumb up 0

  3. stogy

    It’s what I’ve been saying for years and what continues to be true: you cant’ win elections by being “not the Republican”.  

    Yeah, fair enough. Need to have the vision thing too. Hope someone figures that out before the next polling day.

    Thumb up 1

  4. AlexInCT *

    It’s what I’ve been saying for years and what continues to be true: you cant’ win elections by being “not the Republican”. 

    You cant win them if you are selling the misery and envy the left sells either. At least not after the last decade proved this shit doesn’t work as promised. My prediction is that until the left admits Obama was an unwitting disaster and Clinton was about the worst candidate to follow him up with, followed with a rethink of banking on envy and greed to buy votes, that they are going to keep losing. But hey, blame the Russians and disrupt things so the country can’t be run by anyone by your tribe. That’s definitely going to change minds. Only not in the direction they hope these minds change, though…

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    Wow! The Republicans just manage to hang on to a Congressional seat they’ve held for almost 50 years. A huge, win, says the President, despite his own role in slicing some 10 – 15% off the 60 – 70% vote margins regularly recorded in polls over the past couple of decades in the district.

    Why am I not surprised that after the left made much ado about how this was going to finally be the decisive decision that would prove their claim Trumpocalypse was nigh, that they swung to this nonsense about how the electoral result was all but a given, huh? It’s not as if it was predicted and already happened 4 times before this election as well. Here come rich Hollywood and Martha’s vineyard types and outspend the republican 7 to 1 and they still lose. Georgia hicks thank these morons for that redistribution of wealth though, so there is that victory for the left. And isn’t that pajama boy that doesn’t even live in that district now suddenly calling for new and tighter campaign finance regulations to boot?..

    Keep deluding yourself Stogy. I hope the rest of the left keeps doing more of that too. I love it! I am so close to finally getting tired of all the winning. Or not…

    Thumb up 0

  6. AlexInCT *

    Yeah stogy, with all your “fair enough” extremism and delusions.

    Oh the irony. Another marxist pretending to be a centrist responds as if the problem is me pointing out that they are not centrist just because they keep moving the goalpost…

    You don’t disappoint man. I couldn’t make this level of stupid and totally oblivious response to reality when presented with it up if I tried. But hey, if you sleep better stroke each other off in that circle jerk and act as if the problem is me and people like me. Fuck you can even blame the Russians if that helps you feel vindicated. I will just keep laughing at you.

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    Oh the irony.

    Indeed. x1000

    Another marxist pretending to be a centrist responds as if the problem is me pointing out that they are not centrist just because they keep moving the goalpost…

    I’ll indulge you. Where were the “goalposts moved” from and to in this example? You’ve linked to yet another steaming pile of arse, that has been pointed out to you (Iconoclast now seems to think pointing out that something is a steaming pile of arse is ‘flaming’, snowflake much?) and now you’re back into your marxist rantings.

    You don’t disappoint man. I couldn’t make this level of stupid

    Where exactly is this ‘stupid’ you refer to? You’ve been exposed again and have nothing in response except more generic ‘marxist!’ garbage and personal abuse. Your posts are all pre-written generic repeats that bear no relationship to anything written in preceding posts. Are you actually just a bot?

     

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    BTW your ongoing ‘I just laugh’ claim doesn’t at all ring true because the rest of what you post makes it so very clear how very very angry you are (seemingly all the time – as literally everything you find, no matter how ridiculous, appears to trigger you).

    Thumb up 1

  9. stogy

    Trumpocalypse was nigh, that they swung to this nonsense about how the electoral result was all but a given, huh?

    A swing like that across the board – amongst rusted-on GOP voting communities – would see the loss of both houses of Congress in the mid-terms, even with the current gerrymandered electoral system. It’s not really a great win for the Republicans whichever way you spin it, even if it was a poor performance by the Dems. It’s certainly not a resounding mandate for rescinding Obamacare – the victorious candidate completely steered clear of it throughout the campaign.

    Oh the irony. Another marxist pretending to be a centrist responds as if the problem is me pointing out that they are not centrist just because they keep moving the goalpost…

    Now here’s me laughing at you. You don’t know what centrism means, you can’t assemble an argument, and everyone on the left side of right-wing nut job gets labeled a Marxist. But none of this matters: Alex is always right.

    Thumb up 0

  10. stogy

    BTW your ongoing ‘I just laugh’ claim doesn’t at all ring true because the rest of what you post makes it so very clear how very very angry you are (seemingly all the time – as literally everything you find, no matter how ridiculous, appears to trigger you).

    CM, Alex is practically a profile viewer for Fox News and the other RWNJ outfits. All of the pre-scripted debates, the patsies they hire to present the fake “left-wing” positions, and the final word that makes the host look like he’s “tearing them a new asshole” and can easily demolish their naive arguments – it’s all aimed at him.

    And he laps it up!

    Thumb up 1

  11. stogy

    Here’s a little more from that link:

    The Fox News opinion panel scam works like this. More often than not, in my panel segments I was the protagonist or “designated hit man” aka the one called on by the host (as instructed by the producers in my ear or the ear of the host) to “kill ‘em.” You’d know I was the designated hit man when the panel show hosts tossed the final death blow 15–20 seconds to me when they say “Toby you have the final word.”

     

    But before I delivered the final rhetorical death blow …the producer of the segment had given me my script 24 hours BEFORE the show started. I knew 24–48 hours in ADVANCE of how the designated liberal was going to argue his/her point…and more important how I was going to win.
    What is interesting is that Fox News isn’t only about manipulation. It is heavily scripted manipulation. Fox News didn’t hire “weak liberals.” They sabotaged their liberal panelists by scripting the arguments against them so that the conservative always wins. If a Fox News contributor went off script, they would not be back on Fox.
    Fox News planted the idea of “winning” that devoted Fox News viewer Donald Trump made the centerpiece of his presidential campaign in the minds of older conservatives.
    Fox isn’t a news network It is an entertainment network for conservatives that is centered around a scam designed to manipulate their viewers.

    Thumb up 0

  12. AlexInCT *

    BTW your ongoing ‘I just laugh’ claim doesn’t at all ring true because the rest of what you post makes it so very clear how very very angry you are 

    You are mistaking my glee and determination to crush the scum that wanted to do the far worse to my freedom for anger, but then again, your side loves to project.

    Thumb up 0

  13. AlexInCT *

    Fox isn’t a news network It is an entertainment network for conservatives that is centered around a scam designed to manipulate their viewers.

    Hah hah hah! Considering the dnc operatives with bylines dropped all pretense when the criminal hag they tried to force on the country ended up taking a deserved dive, only to go vatshit crazy that Trump won, with all pretense of objectivity and reporting news instead of lying to help the lost and criminal dnc, seeing leftist make claims about Fox News and their news reporting or objectivity is just pathetic.

    I mean Fox News has not been the one that has spent close to 7 months peddling a lie about some Russian collusion to steal the left’s deserved victory without a single fact to back that up. <ore importantly, Fox News, has been the only network to seriously point out both Clinton and Obama need to be behind bars.

    But hey, you centrists just go ahead and show all your disdain for no longer controlling what people are told. Shit, these days I find the Enquirer or whatever other tabloid magazine you can name far more reliable than the dnc operatives with bylines, but nary a word about these people just peddling lies from the usual idiots..

    You know you are royally fucked up when even this idoit says you have lost it.

    Thumb up 0

  14. CM

    You don’t know what centrism means, you can’t assemble an argument, and everyone on the left side of right-wing nut job gets labeled a Marxist. But none of this matters: Alex is always right.

    So much this.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    You are mistaking my glee and determination to crush the scum that wanted to do the far worse to my freedom for anger, but then again, your side loves to project.

    Just so MUCH anger though. Screeds and screeds and screeds of it.

    Thumb up 0

  16. CM

    Hah hah hah! Considering the dnc operatives with bylines dropped all pretense when the criminal hag they tried to force on the country ended up taking a deserved dive, only to go vatshit crazy that Trump won, with all pretense of objectivity and reporting news instead of lying to help the lost and criminal dnc, seeing leftist make claims about Fox News and their news reporting or objectivity is just pathetic.

    But you’ve said before that they’d dropped all pretense etc etc. This is yet another example of you having no perspective at all. Everything is always the worst, everyone you don’t agree with deserves prison and is a cunt. You literally leave yourself with nowhere to go. If you reviewed movies you’d give them all 0/10 or 10/10. And nobody would ever know how the ones you liked compare with each other (or how the ones you didn’t liked compared with each other). You are literally ones and zeroes.

    Thumb up 1

  17. stogy

    I mean Fox News has not been the one that has spent close to 7 months peddling a lie about some Russian collusion to steal the left’s deserved victory without a single fact to back that up.

    There is an investigation and until it’s concluded, it’s not possible to determine the extent of Russian collusion in the election. There are plenty of conservative politicians that have also suggested Russian involvement. And the media have actually continually noted that Trump himself was not (originally) a focus of the investigation. So a lie? I don’t think so. But I like that you are peddling the Fox News line on this to the letter. It just confirms what I said above.

    And we both know that if the shoe was on the other foot, and that if Hillary had called for the Russians to be hacking the opposition candidate, you would be screaming for a hanging, and putting up every piece of misinformation you could find. Because as a completely partisan hack, that’s the way you have to operate.

    Thumb up 1

  18. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast now seems to think pointing out that something is a steaming pile of arse is ‘flaming’, snowflake much?

    Calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people; snarkiness and abuse aren’t needed to “point out” something. And you obviously have no clue what “snowflake” means, but it is still kind of cute that you attempt to use big-kid words even when you don’t know what they mean.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Iconoclast

    There is an investigation and until it’s concluded, it’s not possible to determine the extent of Russian collusion in the election.

    Well, we do have people who have admitted that there is simply no evidence of collusion. People like Diane Fienstein who’s as liberal as they come.

    The problem is that the utter lack of evidence is obviously irrelevant; “investigations” will still continue in spite of the lack of evidence, and as long as they do, the liberal wet dream of impeaching Trump remains alive.

    That’s all that matters. That’s all the left (including you and CM) care about.

    Thumb up 0

  20. Iconoclast

    Even Maxine effing Waters admits there’s no evidence, and she’s been humping the “Impeach Trump” leg since the get-go.

    Thumb up 1

  21. stogy

    Well, we do have people who have admitted that there is simply no evidence of collusion. 

    As I said above, there is no evidence of collusion, but there is evidence of Russian interference in US elections, and an investigation into possible collusion. Trump himself was not being investigated for collusion but is now being investigated for obstruction of justice. And it’s his own big mouth that has put him in this situation.

    But reporters are perfectly entitled to report on an ongoing investigation and to discuss how it might or might not have affected elections – particularly in light of the Comey evidence, the reasons for his firing, the naming of Jared Kushner as a person of interest, and the long-running train wreck that is Mike Flynn.The Fox News line on this – pretending that there is nothing at all behind it apart from sour grapes – is just plain wrong. And we know from past evidence that Alex would be punching the keyboard blue in the face right now had the same allegations been made about a Democrat winner.

    Thumb up 1

  22. Iconoclast

    As I said above, there is no evidence of collusion…..

    And where sis you allegedly say that “above”?  I’ve re-read your posts and failed to find where you allegedly made that statement.  What I did find and originally quoted was this:

    There is an investigation and until it’s concluded, it’s not possible to determine the extent of Russian collusion in the election.

    And it was that to which I responded.

    All those things you mention (Comey “evidence”, Flynn” etc.) is simply smoke. There may be a fire, that’s the desperate hope, but there’s supposed to be probable cause in an “investigation”, which there isn’t. These “investigations” are simply fishing expeditions, searching for something, anything, that can be pinned on Trump.

     

    Thumb up 1

  23. stogy

    And where sis you allegedly say that “above”?  

    Well, I thought I wrote it. That’s practically the same thing in my book. :)

    All those things you mention (Comey “evidence”, Flynn” etc.) is simply smoke.

    In these two cases, I would disagree. Comey has testified under oath about Russian electoral interference, plus there are findings from multiple US agencies dating back to the middle of last year, and his firing may well be found to constitute obstruction of justice – Trump’s tweets didn’t help him there, as he basically implicated himself. Flynn most likely lied about his involvement with Russia and Turkey in his security clearance interview and appears to have taken actions that supported the interests of his foreign paymasters.  Then he lied about this to the VP, which was the reason given for his dismissal.

    That’s not smoke: there is sufficient evidence of crimes being committed to justify an investigation.

    As for Trump’s involvement, who knows?

    Thumb up 0

  24. Iconoclast

    Comey has testified under oath about Russian electoral interference…..

    But Jeh Johnson testified that he saw no evidence that the Russians were able to change any of the tallies.

    The bottom line is that all of this theater has only one purpose: Challenge the legitimacy of Trump’s Presidency. Period.

    First, it was riots.

    Then, it was the “popular vote”.

    Then, the browbeating of the Electors to cast their votes for Hillary, in spite of their state’s having selected Trump.

    Then, “Not My President”.

    Then, “Russia Hacked the Election”

    Now it’s, “Obstruction of Justice”.

    Like I said, it’s all ongoing theater, trying to undermine and de-legitimize  the Trump Presidency.

    And yes, you are correct: Trump ain’t doing himself any favors with his tweets. He really should STFU. But, unfortunately, he won’t.

    Thumb up 1

  25. ilovecress

    Icon – what do you think an investigation does? If there was evidence, then there wouldn’t need to be an investigation, it would be a prosecution. The minute they do (or rule out) any evidence of collusion, the investigation ends.

    Sherlock Holmes has no evidence Moriarty was behind it all for, like, 90% of the movie – but you don’t walk out of the movie theatre in the interval do you?

    There may be a fire

    If you admit that there’s even a slim chance that someone committed treason, then as a patriot, you should be behind getting to the bottom of it. It seems to be pretty well established that the Russians have at least the capability to influence a free and fair US election (leaving aside the argument about whether it had any effect or not) – so they’ll probably try it again, don’t you think?

    So the patriotic thing to do is to get to the bottom of how they did it, and how you can protect yourselves from it in the future. If there was collusion, then that needs to be tackled. If there wasn’t then thats good info as well.

    Thumb up 1

  26. stogy

    But Jeh Johnson testified that he saw no evidence that the Russians were able to change any of the tallies.

    Yep. I agree with you here. There is currently no evidence of Russians altering tallies. The main issue is and has always been Russian hacking of political parties’ e-mails.

    Like I said, it’s all ongoing theater, trying to undermine and de-legitimize  the Trump Presidency.

    Trump repeatedly used the hacked e-mails and personally egged on the hackers during the campaign, so your “theater-goers” do kind of have a point. If he hadn’t done that, then he would have a stronger argument. Whether or not this ultimately affected the outcome we’ll never know.

    And there is a clear case for investigating obstruction of justice – Trump has set that up himself. He should have SFU, as you said. He continually contradicts his own stated positions throughout the campaign, and the threats he made against Mueller were another own goal.

    The question you should consider is how much you would be clamoring for an investigation now if Hillary was the winning candidate, and remembering how much Republicans attempted to delegitimize the Obama administration with all the birther crap they pulled. I am not accusing you of this, just pointing out that what comes around goes around. Republicans can’t have it both ways on this.

    Thumb up 1

  27. Iconoclast

    Icon – what do you think an investigation does?

    Well, an investigation is suppose to find evidence of wrongdoing, but these investigations, which have been going on for a year, have utterly failed to do that. That’s the point.

    If you admit that there’s even a slim chance that someone committed treason…..

    Intellectual honesty compels me to admit that I do not know no wrongdoing occurred, but again, we have an utter lack of evidence after a year of investigating, so I am willing to let the matter drop, based on that lack of evidence. Many on the left, however, are not willing to let the matter drop.

    So the patriotic thing to do is to get to the bottom of how they did it…..

    How who did what?  The only thing we know for sure is that Russians successfully hacked the DNC email system, and that could have been prevented by normal, standard security protocols. Don’t kid yourself into believing some super-genius Russian hackers bypassed a lot of high-tech measures to successfully breach the system. No, the DNC systems were simply vulnerable.  Attempts to hack into the RNC systems failed.  Well, to be accurate, the Russians were successful in hacking the old, unused RNC systems, but not the ones currently being used.

    Beyond that, there simply is no “how they did it” to “get to the bottom of”, at least according to the evidence (or utter lack thereof) we currently have.

    So please refrain from telling me how to be patriotic. The patriotic thing to do is to quit trying to undermine the current Administration, and to quit trying to undermine overall faith in the American system.

    The question you should consider is how much you would be clamoring for an investigation now if Hillary was the winning candidate…..

    I would like to think that if, after a year of investigating, there was no evidence, I would be willing to accept that.

    …..remembering how much Republicans attempted to delegitimize the Obama administration with all the birther crap they pulled…..

    That is a fair and valid point, but after a while, normal people stopped taking it seriously. And frankly, I think normal people are starting to do the same with this whole Russia thing.

    Thumb up 1

  28. Iconoclast

    I would like to think that if, after a year of investigating, there was no evidence, I would be willing to accept that.

    I mean, hell, I was willing to accept what appeared at the time to be her inevitable Presidential victory, just as I accepted Pelosi’s being the first female Speaker, and Obama’s re-election.  I wasn’t happy about any of it, obviously, but I was willing to accept all of it.

    It would be nice if the left could do likewise.

    Thumb up 1

  29. stogy

    I would like to think that if, after a year of investigating, there was no evidence, I would be willing to accept that.

    The average length of an FBI investigation is 1,154 days, which means that if it matches this, the investigation won’t be over until late 2019. But many have run longer that this. I think your “one-year and it all disappears” cutoff point is way premature, particularly considering the potential significance and public interest in the case.

    Even if Trump and his administration are completely innocent, then it would look really really bad for them if everyone suddenly put away their picnic baskets and went home. That could be worse than waiting for the results – assuming they have nothing to hide, of course.

    Thumb up 0

  30. Iconoclast

    The average length of an FBI investigation is 1,154 days…..

    Maybe, but I was responding to this specific challenge:

    The question you should consider is how much you would be clamoring for an investigation now if Hillary was the winning candidate…..

    I gave the best answer I could, based on the information we have today. Therefore, bringing up the “average length” of investigations is moving the goal posts.

    Or, to put a reverse spin on it, what you’re implying is that I would be perfectly justified to “clamor” for a full three years, even while the investigations provide zero evidence.

    Also, this begs the question: Does your average investigation have a net zero evidence after the first year? Or does it typically have at least a smidgeon of evidence to justify continued investigation?

    But many have run longer that this.

    And by the same mathematically inescapable token, many have run shorter.

     

    Thumb up 1

  31. Iconoclast

    I guess  need to post this again, since it was apparently ignored the first time:

    There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion

    Emphasis added:

    The smoke-justifies-the-investigation argument is inconsistent with centuries of common law and the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of “probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.”  Realizing the inconsistency with the rule of law, Deputy AG Rosenstein cited “unique circumstances” and “the public interest” to justify the independent counsel. Taibbi disagrees in a moment of candor. “Liberal thinkers have traditionally abhorred secret courts, secret surveillance and secret evidence” and “reflexively discouraged the news media from printing unverified or unverifiable charges emanating from such secret sources. But because it’s Donald Trump, no one seems to care.

     

    Thumb up 1

  32. Iconoclast

    It’s interesting how the leftists’ comments get a thumbs up, while those on the right get nothing. Obviously, the audience favors the leftist viewpoint, which is why (again) this blog should change its name.

    Thumb up 1

  33. stogy

    I guess  need to post this again, since it was apparently ignored the first time:
    There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion

    I agreed with this. I don’t see the need to repost it. Trump himself, as far as I know, is not under investigation in regard to this. The investigation is into members of Trump’s team, and with the hacking of political parties and the leaking of e-mails playing a role in the election, then yes, this should be investigated. Three years does not seem to me to be an excessive amount of time – whether it’s Hillary or Trump – given that more than one member of his team was on a Russian (and Turkish) payroll, and then Flynn failed to disclose meetings related to his roles. However, you would expect the investigation to look a little wider. And just because you don’t know of any evidence related to the investigations doesn’t mean there is none.

    I would expect that the investigation will run until it’s done. Remember that the problems Trump is experiencing were largely avoidable if he had placed better people around him and listened to their advice. His own hubris has got him here, nothing else.

    Thumb up 2

  34. CM

    I love the ‘theatre’ accusation, given the entire Trump campaign was little else. The ‘deligitimise’ one is great too, given that Trump was The King of trying that on with Obama. This is awfully close to just being parody.

    Thumb up 0

  35. AlexInCT *

    It’s interesting how the leftists’ comments get a thumbs up, while those on the right get nothing. Obviously, the audience favors the leftist viewpoint, which is why (again) this blog should change its name.

    I tend to view the upvotes as the usual gang of moron doubling down on the stupid, so I basically don’t give to shits who has upvotes or not.

    Actually if feel compelled to point out that, this site seems to be rigged not to allow upvotes for everyone (no sure if it is people without cookies enabled can’t vote), and even then, seems to only work only for some people for some reason. I can’t upvote anyone and have not been able to do so for a while since some settings were changed that I decided not to change back when I realized they were changed.

    It is however funny that the only people that can and get upvote seem to be the leftist, which upvote each other in what amounts to nothing but a giant circle jerk. It has gotten boring to be frank, and I more often than not only bother to post the shit that I know pisses the lot of them off, then let them grand stand, slap each other on the back, and think they are real clever or something. The tragedy, or if you like me see the comedy gold here, is that they are fucking idiots that think they are something other than that.

    Here is my advice to you: post juicy stories like this, or this one, and to show them how the dnc operatives with bylines are a bunch of cock sucking chucks, stuff like this. The left is fucking tearing out its cunt hairs as it sees the steamrolled shit they straddled us with over the last 8 years be torn down, and they are fucking losing it.

    Thumb up 3

  36. AlexInCT *

    Yo CM, your Russia stories, as funny as they are to read for the fiction in them created by the dnc and the dnc operatives with bylines, will result in nothing but a bunch of even more depressed lefttards. On the other hand, it looks like Lynch will soon be making license plates, and if lady justice gets its way, so will Bernie’s wife. Maybe after they get Loretta, she gives them the real big fish, and Mrs. Clinton can join Mrs. Sanders in making small rocks out of bigger ones.

    Don’t worry. Obama being the king pin will only be found to have been the most corrupt president in history, making Nixon look like a saint, and his administration will finally get the well deserved title of criminal organization, but being the capo-di-tuti-capi, he will likely be left to make oodles of money talking to stupid people like the leftists we have here whom will still keep fawning over this abject loser. You know, like other idiots like WJC, Gore, and other snake oil salesmen have been doing for a while now. Then he can tell us how America is not fair to everyone while lighting cigars with $1000 bills he got from idiot proggies that are being bamboozled by people like him.

    Thumb up 2

  37. ilovecress

    Maybe after they get Loretta, she gives them the real big fish, and Mrs. Clinton can join Mrs. Sanders in making small rocks out of bigger ones.

    Well, an investigation is suppose to find evidence of wrongdoing, but these investigations, which have been going on for a year, have utterly failed to do that. 

    Thumb up 3

  38. stogy

    So… with Trump telling Fox and Friends that he didn’t make any tapes of his conversations with Comey, he agreed that it was a smart move to suggest that he might have made recordings in order to get Comey to change his story.

    …thereby pretty much admitting he attempted to intimidate James Comey as a witness and influence his testimony.

    That’s pretty much a textbook admission of obstruction of justice.

     

    Thumb up 2

  39. stogy

    And here is the criminal definition of obstruction of justice (US Code 1512):

    (b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
    (1)
    influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

     

     

    Thumb up 2

  40. CM

    Sorry stogy, that definition is rigged too, just like up votes. Everything I don’t like is rigged. If you don’t agree you’re a cunt. Case closed.

    Thumb up 1

  41. stogy

    Agreed CM. I have given Alex a couple of thumbs up for his recent efforts because they made me laugh, and well… just because I can.

    Life’s too short!

    Thumb up 2

  42. AlexInCT *

    More good news, but not for those of you that hoped this circus would somehow make Trump the bad guy.

    And you can keep your thumbs up to yourselves. I was gonna recommend you stick them somewhere special, but then I figured it might be hard to do with your heads already in the way.

    Thumb up 1

  43. AlexInCT *

    So… with Trump telling Fox and Friendsthat he didn’t make any tapes of his conversations with Comey, he agreed that it was a smart move to suggest that he might have made recordings in order to get Comey to change his story.

    …thereby pretty much admitting he attempted to intimidate James Comey as a witness and influence his testimony.

    Only in idiot land, does making sure the guy that has been telling half truths and outright bullshit actually has to worry about not committing perjury, while under oath, mind you, amount to intimidation and exerting negative influence. It is telling that you made this idiotic statement Stogy. Because after all, to people like you what was important was for Comey to present a story that fits the narrative the left has fabricated and been peddling to disrupt the results of a lawful election you dislike, instead of actually getting to the truth (which is all pointing out there are tapes that could be used to counter those lies leading to perjury charges would do).

    Thanks for validating that what really pisses you off about Trump making sure Comey told the truth, was that he actually that his claim to have tapes forced Comey to tell the truth, instead of lying to get revenge or help the fabricated and totally false story the left has been peddling for the last 7 to 8 months. Don’t worry. With Lynch now being dragged in under oath and people actually investigating this, you will get the truth. You might not like it one bit, because as those of us not totally devoid of intellect have already figured out, it will be the left that comes out as the corrupt and dirty crime syndicate that it is, but you are going to get it.

    Thumb up 0

  44. stogy

    Thanks for validating that what really pisses you off about Trump making sure Comey told the truth, was that he actually that his claim to have tapes forced Comey to tell the truth, instead of lying to get revenge or help the fabricated and totally false story the left has been peddling for the last 7 to 8 months.

    Assuming I have understood this correctly (I had to rework the grammar in my head), it isn’t actually legally relevant whether Comey was more or less honest in his testimony as a result of Trump’s threat. And Trump’s first statement after Comey’s testimony asserted Comey had lied while now he is taking credit for Comey telling the truth. So I have no idea whether he perjured himself or not – and neither do you.

    The issue here is that Trump has taken credit for intimidating (through misleading conduct) a witness under oath. That’s obstruction of justice whatever the outcome and whatever his motive was.

    With Lynch now being dragged in under oath and people actually investigating this, you will get the truth. 

    Look, a squirrel!!

     

     

     

    Thumb up 2

  45. AlexInCT *

    Assuming I have understood this correctly (I had to rework the grammar in my head), it isn’t actually legally relevant whether Comey was more or less honest in his testimony as a result of Trump’s threat.

    Do you need help untying that knot you twisted yourself into to make that idiotic statement? Again: I say that only in liberal idiot land can someone level the ridiculous accusation that demanding a person that will testify under oath tell the truth or risk getting in legal trouble when taped conversations with the facts get released, amount to a threat.

    And Trump’s first statement after Comey’s testimony asserted Comey had lied while now he is taking credit for Comey telling the truth. So I have no idea whether he perjured himself or not – and neither do you.

    Actually I am far more certain that he was as careful as possible to make sure he didn’t perjure himself, thus telling the truth, precisely because he worried that had he done so, the tapes would have been used to prove him guilty.

    Yet you want to still keep the idiot made up narrative that has sustained your fantasy of somehow seeing an election result overturned going by pretending Comey being made to tell the truth out of fear of legal repercussions somehow being a bad thing.

    The whole Trump is a Russian stooge and they colluded to rob Clinton lie is dead. It was nothing but a fabricated story to undermine the Trump administration. And more importantly, to help the left conceal the bungled election, their corrupt behavior, the fact that Hillary Clinton is a crime syndicate boss, and the Obama administration habitually abused its power and broke the law by using government to go after political enemies of all kinds. It is a dead story. CNN just hastily sent out a memo to its own people telling them no more talk about Russia  unless cleared, because after that fake story they put up had to be hastily pulled down, they got told they were going to get sued for damages and defamation.

    Oh, I suspect the dnc operatives with bylines will spend the next few months desperately trying to give the left cover, but in the end, I can’t see Lynch not getting a guilty of obstruction of justice charge and even jail time. And it shouldn’t end there. Hilary broke the law and needs to go to jail, and Obama, even though he will escape it because nobody wants to deal with the bullshit that comes after he justly ends up behind bars, needs to as a minimum be exposed for the fraud he and the image left has created of him, are.

    I told you so, BTW.

    Thumb up 0

  46. stogy

    Actually I am far more certain that he was as careful as possible to make sure he didn’t perjure himself, thus telling the truth, precisely because he worried that had he done so, the tapes would have been used to prove him guilty

    Certain, you say? How are you certain? The only thing you have to go on is Trump’s version of events: first he said Comey lied, now he is saying that, through his clever little deception (aka witness tampering), he forced Comey to tell the truth.  You can’t have it both ways – Trump is either lying at the beginning or lying at the end. He’s the very definition of an unreliable witness.

    But if you have other evidence, I would love to hear it.

    And most countries have witness tampering laws. For good reason.

    The whole Trump is a Russian stooge and they colluded to rob Clinton lie is dead.

    Trump is not under investigation for collusion (how many times do I have to repeat that?). But members of his team are – and there is substantial evidence against them, including that they provided misleading statements about contacts while under oath. There is an ongoing investigation. You just saying it is dead doesn’t make it dead.

    In fact, Trump just blamed Obama for Russian involvement in the election… which would mean that he now thinks Russia did attempt to manipulate (or as he said, “meddle in”) the election?? At least I think that’s what he’s saying?? Trump’s own tweets change the story so I often that I struggle to stay on top of the latest. We’ve gone from no meddling two months ago to meddling now. In which case, on Trump’s own admission here, the investigation needs to continue.

    Or… he could be an unreliable witness who makes up new “incredibly smart” maneuvers on the fly based on inadequate information with no reference back to what he said before even if it was only yesterday. Particularly when his ego is stroked.

    hmmm…. which is it? It’s a toughy!

    And more importantly, to help the left conceal the bungled election, their corrupt behavior, the fact that Hillary Clinton is a crime syndicate boss

    There’s that squirrel again. No no, over there! Look!

     

     

    Thumb up 2

  47. Iconoclast

    I love the ‘theatre’ accusation, given the entire Trump campaign was little else.

    All campaigns are little else…..

    This is awfully close to just being parody.

    “Awfully close” is in the eye of the beholder. Regardless, that doesn’t stop it from being true.

    Thumb up 1

  48. Iconoclast

    I agreed with this.

    Well, you agreed with the overall lack of evidence claim, but what I quoted was a bit more specific, and dealt with the lack of probable cause.  Like I keep saying, these “investigations” are fishing expeditions, which means they’re bogus. They’re driven more by a hatred of Trump than a good-faith pursuit of justice.

    I guess we need someone to come out and say they couldn’t find any evidence of intent to obstruct justice or whatever. Worked for Clinton, after all.

    And just because you don’t know of any evidence related to the investigations doesn’t mean there is none.

    What I do know is that Feinstein and Waters are both on record as having admitted there isn’t any.

     

    Thumb up 1

  49. stogy

    Like I keep saying, these “investigations” are fishing expeditions, which means they’re bogus. They’re driven more by a hatred of Trump than a good-faith pursuit of justice.

    Again, there is some evidence that several members of Trump’s team lied  under oath and provided misleading statements of contacts. That does merit an investigation – or it will otherwise be seen as a cover-up.

    What I do know is that Feinstein and Waters are both on record as having admitted there isn’t any.

    Feinstein said that she has not seen any evidence, same as you and me. That is not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. In fact, Comey seemed to indicate in his testimony that there is additional evidence that has not been made public or available to the Senate investigations. Trump’s witness tampering and obstruction of justice have just made things worse.

    Best to make sure that investigations do what they are supposed to do, which is to investigate Russian interference in the election – regardless of whether Trump’s team were involved or not.

    I want to know, don’t you? Otherwise it brings into question the validity and people’s faith in the whole electoral system.

    Thumb up 1

  50. ilovecress

    Nah – it’s probably fine. Since when did anyone in power do anything wrong? Best to give them the benefit of the doubt. Amirite conservatives?

    Thumb up 3

  51. Iconoclast

    I want to know, don’t you?

    Hmm, I don’t recall your having such burning curiosity over Fast and Furious, or Obamacare lies, or the IRS targeting of conservative groups, or Benghazi, or Hillary’s email server, or Loretta Lynch’s possible tamperings. Your desire to know seems a bit selective.

    Otherwise it brings into question the validity and people’s faith in the whole electoral system.

    In my view, it’s these bogus “investigations” that have that effect; the implied narrative is that Hillary had the election stolen from her, with Russia’s help. In other words, Trump’s presidency is illegitimate. That’s why I consider these “investigations” to be bogus.

    Comey is an Obama appointee; he kept a “journal” on Trump, but not on his previous boss. The whole purpose of his leaking info, via a third party, was to trigger a “special investigation”, headed by another Obama lackey, Mueller.  Mueller’s “team” is composed primarily of more democrat lackeys, and you’re telling me with a straight face that this is a legitimate, impartial, unbiased investigation? Sorry, it has “witch hunt” written all over it, from my perspective.

     Best to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Y’all certainly seemed willing to give Obama the benefit of every doubt……..

    Thumb up 0

  52. stogy

    Hmm, I don’t recall your having such burning curiosity over Fast and Furious, or Obamacare lies, or the IRS targeting of conservative groups, or Benghazi, or Hillary’s email server, or Loretta Lynch’s possible tamperings. Your desire to know seems a bit selective.

    And I reckon if you went back over my whole posting history, you’d find I said at least a dozen times that if there is evidence against your list of Dems above, then it is fine to lock ‘em all up. I think the IRS targeting of conservative groups was reprehensible, and I told Alex that at the time. I consider drone strikes make Obama a likely war criminal and hurt US interests across the ME (but like his predecessors from both parties, he will never be punished), and I have no idea about what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about, but if you can prove that either of them plotted to get Hillary out of trouble, then throw the book at them. And Hillary too.

    It’s now a lot clearer that Hillary and the State Dept were trafficking weapons to militant groups in Syria, and this led to the deaths of the US consul and others. But how many Senate investigations were able to run full course into Benghazi – mostly by a Republican-dominate house and Senate, but they were still not able to come up with anything to charge her for. But way back then, Hillary’s supporters referred to the multiple investigations as… wait for it… a witch hunt against her. Did you call for the investigations to be halted after a year because of lack of evidence? No, you supported a full accounting of what happened. So just be careful when you play the hypocrite card.

    See, unlike Alex (and perhaps you) I think the court system should be used to hold people in power to account. Not be used as a tool for revenge against political enemies. But unless Trump is held to account, and his likely Democrat successor, and the people that come after him/her, then none of our leaders will ever live in fear of the people and the courts.

    Comey is an Obama appointee; he kept a “journal” on Trump, but not on his previous boss. 

    Yeah, if my boss started putting pressure on me to do stuff that went against my conscience I’d start to write stuff down on a daily basis too. Otherwise, I wouldn’t bother to keep a diary. Comey makes complete sense.

    Mueller’s “team” is composed primarily of more democrat lackeys

    Your point? Mueller is a registered Republican appointed by a Trump appointee. He was widely lauded by Republicans when was given the post. But suddenly you’ve taken up the Fox and Friends “it’s a witch hunt” mantra. Just like the Dems and the Hillary Benghazi witch hunt mantra.

    As I have repeatedly pointed out, there is evidence that the Russians meddled in the election – something Trump himself has admitted – and there is evidence that members of his team made misleading statements about their Russian involvement while under oath. Trump has also publicly boasted of intimidating a witness. Regardless of whether it was successful, that’s a criminal offense with up to 20 years in prison.All of this justifies an investigation regardless of what you think, and it should go on until it’s finished. If criminal wrongdoing is found then charges should be laid. If not, then fine.

     

    Thumb up 2

  53. Iconoclast

    Legal Experts Doubt Case For Obstruction Of Justice Against Trump

    However, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz explained to CNN last week that even if Trump commanded Comey to drop the Flynn probe, Trump would have had the right to do that.

    “The President could have told Comey you are commanded, directed to drop the prosecution against Flynn,” Dershowitz said. “The President has the right to do that. Comey acknowledges that. He says in the statement that historically, historically presidents have done that to the Justice Department. But in the last few years we’ve had a tradition of separation, but that tradition doesn’t create crime. Remember also what the President could have done. He could have said to Comey, stop this investigation, I am now pardoning Flynn. That’s what President Bush did in the beginning of the investigation of Caspar Weinberger.”

    Dershowitz added, “Nobody talked about obstruction of justice. You cannot have obstruction of justice when the president exercises his constitutional authority to pardon, his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI, or his constitutional authority to tell the director of the FBI who to prosecute, who not to prosecute. So let’s get out of the weeds and let’s look at the big constitutional question.”

    …….

    “Such generic ‘he’s-a-good-guy-can’t-you-drop-the-charges?’ statements are routinely made to investigators and prosecutors. Defending one’s self, client or friend is a natural instinct, and beseeching leniency is not tantamount to obstruction. Holding otherwise would endorse a breathtaking expansion of obstruction, and be utterly inconsistent with First Amendment freedoms,” Price writes.

     

    Thumb up 0

  54. Iconoclast

     Just like the Dems and the Hillary Benghazi witch hunt mantra.

    There are differences, not the least of which is that American lives were lost at Benghazi. But yeah, technically, Hillary didn’t commit any crime. But she was still responsible, as Sec of State, not that she ever took responsibility, nor was ever held to any account.

    Thumb up 1

  55. stogy

    So, Icon… let me see if I understand you correctly. The pardon system potentially means that the ruling party can do whatever it likes without any fear of legal repercussions – that’s what I take from your extended quote above. You are arguing in favor of a system that removes political accountability for those in power – particularly when it is the party on your side of politics that controls government?

    Dershowitz added, “Nobody talked about obstruction of justice. You cannot have obstruction of justice when the president exercises his constitutional authority to pardon, 

    Unless I am mistaken (a possibility), it seems that this transcript confuses the Senate investigation with the FBI inquiry. Trump tried to influence a witness testimony under oath before the Senate – a pardon wouldn’t have made any difference here. The Senate is still entitled to conduct its own investigations into anything it likes.

    And yes, I agree. Hillary should have taken responsibility for Benghazi and she should have resigned. No one was even fired (just four people were suspended) due to critical management failures at the State Department.

    Thumb up 0

  56. Iconoclast

    Pardon Power

    The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1

    …….

    The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process. A reprieve is the commutation or lessening of a sentence already imposed; it does not affect the legal guilt of a person. A pardon, however, completely wipes out the legal effects of a conviction. A pardon can be issued from the time an offense is committed, and can even be issued after the full sentence has been served. It cannot, however, be granted before an offense has been committed, which would give the President the power to waive the laws.

    You can interpret that any way you like.

    Thumb up 1

  57. stogy

    You can interpret that any way you like.

    Yes, and I choose to interpret it as an invitation for Presidents to avoid the consequence of crimes committed by themselves and others while in office.

    Interesting to note the WSJ has been publishing accounts alleged of collusion between people associated with Flynn and some Russian hacking groups who have connections to the Kremlin. Trump ran some solid interference over the weekend but the story refuses to die. I am not sure what to make of it all yet, but I would be interested in people’s take on this – sorry this is such an old thread though.

     

    Thumb up 1

  58. stogy

    I am hearing rumours that, following on from the WSJ collusion allegations from the weekend, the WAPO is about to run a story showing incontrovertible evidence that the stories are true.

    Has anyone else heard anything on this?

    Thumb up 0

  59. Iconoclast

    Yeah, I’m sure this latest tidbit has you and CM all a-quiver over the possibilities, but normal Americans stopped giving a f*ck months ago, given that ZERO EVIDENCE has turned up.  But yeah, I’m confident that the WaPo (who gave us those debunked “stories” from “anonymous sources” a few weeks back) will get it right this time.  I’m sure some “GOP Activist” “communicated” with “Russian hackers” and that Flynn’s name was mentioned by someone for some reason.

    Just another secondhand hearsay breadcrumb that leftists desperately hope will somehow morph into a trail leading to the nirvana of “COLLUSION!!!!!”

    Keep dreaming.  Like I said, maybe this time there really is a wolf out there, but nobody cares because y’all have cried “Wolf!” too many times already.

    Thumb up 0

  60. stogy

    given that ZERO EVIDENCE has turned up.

    Well that’s simply not true. The story in the Wall Street Journal (not the WaPo, mind – the WSJ) last week on Peter W. Smith really put an end to the argument that there were no connections between Trump’s election team members and the hackers. The administration did not bother to even deny that there were connections with Smith, but said they were personal (through Flynn) rather than through officially sanctioned channels.

    You can keep saying it all you like but there are now very legitimate reasons for continuing the investigation. Yes, there is evidence.

    Thumb up 0

  61. CM

    They really should end all investigations before any evidence comes to light. It’s the obvious right thing to do, SAY NORMAL AMERICANS.

    Still more evidence than Obama being an illegitimate POTUS but how long did Donald keep that one going?

    Meanwhile we can sit back and enjoy Trump abroad again, continuing his campaign to make the US the laughing stock of Planet Earth. Oops yet another unfornunate handshake snafu, how unfortunate! All ok though, because the process of conception is actually now a single point in time and then there’s nothing more important than that ‘human’ (until it’s actually born, then fuck it).

    Thumb up 0

  62. Iconoclast

    …..but how long did Donald keep that one going?

    Irrelevant.  There is a world of difference between a Senate or FBI investigation and a politician/celebrity “keeping something going”.

    The rest of your unhinged nonsense is simply ignored.

    Thumb up 0

  63. Iconoclast

    Yes, there is evidence.

    Of what, exactly?  Yes, we have a guy named Smith attempting to contact Russian hackers to obtain Hillary’s emails, and yes, this guy was “connected” to the Trump campaign, but what does that mean, actually?

    Was he acting in any official capacity for the Trump campaign, or was he acting on his own? Did he actually succeed in getting the emails? If he was acting solo, and if he’s guilty of a crime, well, he’s dead now, so what does that mean?

    Sure, investigate, I have no problem with that. But I suspect that this will, again, ultimately lead to nothing.

    Bottom line on whether there’s any evidence of anything:  We’ll see.

    Thumb up 0

  64. CM

    But we shouldn’t ‘see’, apparently it should all stop now. Because that’s what normal American’s want.
    If this was HILLARY OMFG then you’d be singing an entirely different tune and you know it.

    Thumb up 0

  65. CM

    The most obvious takeaway from the G20 summit is that Putin has Trump neutered and no other world leader sees any value in engaging with Trump.

    And again, if Obama had sent his (much more qualified) wife to sit in for him, the right would be going batshit insane. As they would if ANY Dem POTUS was this embarrassing and ineffectual and counter-productive to US interests on the world stage. Re-reading those old complaints about Obama really is surreal now.

    Thumb up 1

  66. CM

    Did everyone enjoy the G20 slideshow seemingly made with Microsoft Movie Maker? I sure did. I wonder if the next one will be of Jnr meeting the Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary.
    They really need to shut these investigations down quickly.

    Thumb up 0

  67. Iconoclast

    What part of, “Sure, investigate, I have no problem with that” are you having trouble with?

    Apparently, you’re having trouble with all of it.

    Thumb up 0

  68. CM

    Sure, Iconoclast, that’s it. You sure got me. Let’s just ignore your arguments about wrapping it all up because these “investigations” are simply fishing expeditions etc etc.

    But I did like your cutting critique from earlier, very telling:

    Trump ain’t doing himself any favors with his tweets. He really should STFU. But, unfortunately, he won’t.

    As if that could ever happen – that is a major part of who he is. What you’re really saying is that you wish he wouldn’t keep giving us all clear reminders about who he is and what he’s about, and implicating himself. Rather than the behaviour, lack of attention to any detail, lack of knowledge, and lack of care about any of that.

    Thumb up 1

  69. Iconoclast

     Let’s just ignore your arguments about wrapping it all up because these “investigations” are simply fishing expeditions etc etc.

    Well, they are fishing expeditions unless there is probable cause, but beyond that, I never argued about “wrapping anything up”.  That’s just you, telling me what I mean.

    I may have implied such, when I said the following:

    The patriotic thing to do is to quit trying to undermine the current Administration, and to quit trying to undermine overall faith in the American system.

    And I stand by that.  It’s funny, but here we are again with leftists trying to tell us that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, when dissent pretty much amounts to treason when the Democrats are in charge.  Regardless, it was a qualified implication. I never explicitly argued for “wrapping it up”.

    What you’re really saying is……(blah blah blah)

    That’s just you telling me what I mean again. It’s comical how you get your tits in such an uproar when you think I’m doing that to you (which I don’t, but you insist that I do, which speaks to your lack of comprehension of written English).  Hypocrisy much?

     

    Thumb up 0