ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [437] -- That Thing That Trump Did

[ Posted Friday, May 19th, 2017 – 17:44 PDT ]

We'd like to begin today by apologizing for not including whatever scandal broke while we were writing this column. It takes us hours to write these, and while we're typing we're not reading news headlines. So this weekly wrapup will doubtlessly not mention whatever scandal broke in the past few hours, and for this we apologize. We would direct you to the final talking point today to cover this lapse (from which we also borrowed our subtitle today, because Daniel Drezner's article is such a hilarious piece of satire).

Think that's overstating the case? We don't. While we were busy writing up notes today, the following story appeared:

The law enforcement investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign has identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, showing that the probe is reaching into the highest levels of government, according to people familiar with the matter.

The senior White House adviser under scrutiny by investigators is someone close to the president, according to these people, who would not further identify the official.

Good thing we double-checked the headlines before we started writing, in other words, because the Scandalpalooza that is the Trump White House is now generating fresh outrages on an almost hourly basis. OK, that might be overstating the case slightly, but not by much. Consider just one twelve-hour period in the middle of last week alone:

For any president, one of these headlines would be very bad news. For President Trump, they all came in a span of 12 hours:

It was a dizzying Wednesday night for political reporters and followers alike, with a bevy of new information being thrown at them on multiple fronts. And it continued into early Thursday morning with that last headline, from Reuters.

That's not quite a scandal an hour, but it's close enough for government work (as they say).

Following all this has gotten exhausting. So we'd like to take everyone on a fantasy interlude to an alternate reality where Hillary Clinton is president. It's a dark fantasy, however, because this week it was revealed that President Clinton pressured her F.B.I. director to lock up some journalists who had written stories about confidential leaks from her administration. She thought it'd send a message and serve as an example to other reporters, to scare them into not writing such stories.

Imagine for just one tiny moment what the reaction from a Republican Congress would have been. To say nothing of Fox News. If that story had broken early in the week, the House would have immediately drawn up a bill of impeachment, which likely would have been approved in a floor vote by week's end. The mainstream media wouldn't have anything nice to say about Hillary, because attacking reporters usually causes them to circle the wagons in a big way.

Back to reality. This scenario isn't total fantasy, because that was indeed reported about Donald Trump this week -- and people barely noticed. Including the media! As a minor footnote to a bigger scandal story, the New York Times reported: "Alone in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump began the discussion by condemning leaks to the news media, saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information." The reason why this news was such small potatoes is that so many other scandals were breaking it was impossible to keep up. If Hillary Clinton had done one-one-hundredth of the things Trump has managed in his first four months in office, she would definitely have been impeached by the Republican House by now.

Hopefully, with Trump out of the country for all of next week, the pace will slow down somewhat. But then again, who knows? Trump is going to talk to the Saudis, the Israelis, and the Palestinians -- what could possibly go wrong with any of that?

Afterwards, Trump will sit in on a NATO meeting. NATO is preparing for this, according to Foreign Policy, by dumbing everything down to Trump's level. From the story:

NATO is scrambling to tailor its upcoming meeting to avoid taxing President Donald Trump's notoriously short attention span. The alliance is telling heads of state to limit talks to two to four minutes at a time during the discussion, several sources inside NATO and former senior U.S. officials tell Foreign Policy. And the alliance scrapped plans to publish the traditional full post-meeting statement meant to crystallize NATO's latest strategic stance.

. . .

"It's kind of ridiculous how they are preparing to deal with Trump," said one source briefed extensively on the meeting's preparations. "It's like they're preparing to deal with a child -- someone with a short attention span and mood who has no knowledge of NATO, no interest in in-depth policy issues, nothing," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They're freaking out."

His own advisors seem to be having similar problems, according to Reuters:

Conversations with some officials who have briefed Trump and others who are aware of how he absorbs information portray a president with a short attention span.

He likes single-page memos and visual aids like maps, charts, graphs and photos.

National Security Council officials have strategically included Trump's name in "as many paragraphs as we can because he keeps reading if he's mentioned," according to one source, who relayed conversations he had with N.S.C. officials.

So, again -- what could possibly go wrong?

Whoops! The mini-scandals are already happening surrounding Trump's Israel visit. The White House has already told Israel that "Trump's visit to the Western Wall was private, Israel did not have jurisdiction in the area and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not welcome to accompany Trump there." This was pretty shocking news to the Israelis, especially that bit about them having no jurisdiction in the area. Trump also cancelled a trip to Masada because he wasn't allowed to land a helicopter on top of the ancient fortress ruins, and announced his visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum would be cut to only 15 minutes. Nothing like being a diplomatic guest, eh?

But we've got way too much to cover, so we've got to shift into lightning mode, and just briefly touch on the low points of the week. At this point, lightning mode is the only way anyone has of keeping up, really. Seatbelts buckled? Then here we go....

President Trump gave away secret intelligence to the Russians in the Oval Office, and by doing so might have compromised an very valuable Israeli source within the Islamic State.

Republican hypocrisy (1): Paul Ryan, from last year's campaign: "No one should be above the law. But based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions." No such statement on Trump's reckless mishandling of national security information appeared this week.

Republican hypocrisy (2): Trump himself, from the campaign trail (July): "So how can Hillary Clinton be briefed on this unbelievably delicate information when it was just proven that she lied and that her server shouldn't have had it and that they're missing 33,000 emails and that's just the beginning.... I don't think that it's safe to have Hillary Clinton, in light of what just happened, and in light of what we just found out, I don't think it's safe to have Hillary Clinton be briefed on national security because the word will get out." And again, in September: "We can't have someone in the Oval Office who doesn't understand the meaning of the word confidential."

Republican hypocrisy (3): Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama, last year: "She betrayed her country by exposing national security information to risk by our adversaries. That is a criminal offense. That makes it an impeachable offense. She probably has committed an impeachable offense, therefore she probably should be impeached. But in all likelihood she won't be because Congress doesn't have the political will to do so."

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse took the opportunity to taunt all this Republican hypocrisy on Twitter: "Hillary emails have harmless 'classified' info; Republicans chant 'lock her up.' Trump reveals real secrets to Russians; Rs say what??"

James Comey not only took meticulous notes after every contact with Donald Trump, he also apparently prepared in advance (in a "murder board" prep session) so he could gently inform the president if he tried to suggest anything unethical or flat-out illegal. In more than one such meeting, Trump pressured him to back off the Russia investigation, and to "let Flynn go."

Comey has reached rock-star status in Washington, and congressional committees are reportedly vying with each other as to who can book him for public testimony first. One House committee announced it had scheduled time on Wednesday for Comey to testify, but Comey hasn't agreed to this yet, so it's anyone's guess which hearing he'll pop up at first.

Aside: If Donald Trump goes down in flames for any of this, he will have only himself to blame. Trump is -- easily -- his own worst enemy, and we don't expect this to change any time soon.

Vladimir Putin is laughing his ass off right now, and also trying out his hand at comedy, by offering to provide Congress with a transcript of the Oval Office meeting. Thanks, and don't forget to tip your waitress, folks!

Wednesday: [See "12 hours" bullet list, above.]

Afterwards, even with all the Flynn revelations, Trump seemed absolutely delusional about the prospects of eventually bringing him back to the White House, it appears:

Several sources [said] Trump has expressed his hopes that a resolution of the F.B.I.'s investigation in Flynn's favor might allow Flynn to rejoin the White House... a scenario some of Trump's closest advisers in and outside the West Wing have assured him absolutely should not happen. "Trump feels really, really, really bad about firing him, and he genuinely thinks if the investigation is over Flynn can come back," said one White House official. One former F.B.I. official and a second government official said Trump thought he owed Flynn for how things ended up and was determined to clear Flynn's name and bring him back to the White House.

Trump not only confirmed his delusional belief this week that firing James Comey would be met with bipartisan applause, but the White House also indicated another rather bizarre attempt at reaching out to Democrats -- Joe Lieberman is apparently Trump's top pick to replace Comey at the F.B.I. Joe Freakin' Lieberman! Yeah, that'll get a lot of Senate confirmation votes from the other side of the aisle....

Trump also played the "big baby victim" card this week, whining to the Coast Guard graduates: "You will find that things happen to you that you do not deserve and that are not always warranted. Look at the way I've been treated lately, especially by the media. No politician in history -- and I say this with great surety -- has been treated worse or more unfairly." Trump later tweeted: "This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!" and: "With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a special councel [sic] appointed!" Whaaaah! Later, at a mini-press conference, Trump continued his tantrum: "I respect the move, but the entire thing has been a witch hunt."

At the end of the week, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein briefed both the Senate and the House on the Comey firing. In preparation for these meetings, Rosenstein named Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate all things Trump. In the meetings, Rosenstein said he already knew Trump was going to fire Comey before he even wrote his now-infamous memo.

Lindsey Graham emerged from the Rosenstein meeting and said: "It was a counterintelligence investigation until now. It seems to me now to be considered a criminal investigation."

Whew! Finally, we get to the end of the week. Although, as we've already said, we cannot possibly know what news is breaking while we're busy writing all of this.

Two non-Trump news items are also worth mentioning. John McCain is calling for the Turkish ambassador to be thrown out of the U.S., after protesters were violently beaten outside the Turkish embassy this week by Turkish security men.

And the Environmental Protection Agency asked for public comments on how they could slash environmental regulations to make everyone's lives better, and they got an earful in response -- over 55,000 responses. Here's the sort of thing people had to say:

"Know your history or you'll be doomed to repeat it," one person wrote. "Environmental regulations came about for a reason. There is scientific reasoning behind the need for it. It is not a conspiracy to harm corporations. It's an attempt to make the people's lives better."

"Have we failed to learn from history, and forgotten the harm done to our air, water, and wetlands?" wrote Karen Sonnessa from New York. "If anything, regulations need to be more stringent. I remember the days of smog, pollution, and rivers spontaneously combusting. E.P.A. is for the people."

One commenter simply wrote the word "No" over and over, 1,665 times.

Which brings us to our final item, which is another large number. The Washington Post has put up a fun "Fact Checker" page which graphically shows the history of Donald Trump's propensity to lie. As of this writing, the total is up to a whopping 586 whoppers in only 119 days. Another record Trump can brag about breaking!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We fully admit we've always been suckers for brilliantly hilarious (or hilariously brilliant?) political street theater when considering who deserves the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, and this week is no exception.

Our MIDOTW award goes to "projection artist" Robin Bell. Here's the whole amusing story:

For a few minutes Monday night, projection artist Robin Bell tried to bring attention to the issue by shining light on it -- a big, blue light.

Bell parked his van about 9:15 p.m. on 12th Street NW across the street from the west entrance of the Trump International Hotel. Bell and two friends then turned on a projector in the van and displayed animated anti-Trump messages about the president's alleged conflicts of interest onto the upscale hotel's facade.

Hotel security ordered him to shut off the projections after only a few minutes, but it was enough time for the messages to go viral on social media, garnering thousands of posts on Twitter and Facebook.

"That is one of the big things that I'm trying to do -- using our artwork to explain these stories that are tricky," said Bell, an artist and filmmaker based in the District. "If someone can laugh and look at something, and then talk about it."

The projections focused on the Constitution's emoluments clause, which says that no person holding a federal office shall "accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Others read "emoluments welcome here" and "pay Trump bribes here."

Bell said the projections lasted about six minutes, and he was able to keep the projections going while a security guard talked to him about taking them down. His favorite part of the night came, he said, when an open-top tour bus drove by and riders started to cheer.

The article has a photo of the "Pay Trump bribes here" message, which is absolutely priceless.

For coming up with the idea to make a political statement without actually vandalizing property, for coming up with such prime snark in the messages themselves, and for pulling it all off without a hitch, we proudly award Robin Bell this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Well done, Mr. Bell, well done indeed!

One final note, while looking up his contact information, we found the Bellvisuals website, which contains an image of a previous display on the Trump hotel: "Experts agree: Trump is a pig". If we had been aware of this one when it happened, we would have cheerfully awarded him the MIDOTW back then, not just for doing it but also for the historic knowledge of one of the best Washington pranks of all time: the "Experts agree: Meese is a pig" flyer, from Ronald Reagan's time in office. Once again: well done! Bravo!

[Congratulate Robin Bell via his Bellvisuals contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

OK, before we get to the obvious choice this week, we've got to put on our "Grammar Police" hat for a moment. In an article about the Democratic Party getting its panties in a bunch over whether Bernie Sanders was going to run for president in 2020, there was the following quote, from a "longtime senior party official," whining about Bernie: "He's a constant reminder. He allows the healing that needs to take place to not take place."

[Sound of our jaw dropping on the floor.]

Seriously? You're a senior Democratic Party official and the best you could come up with was: "He allows the healing that needs to take place to not take place"? Wow. Maybe it's a Bill Clinton appointee, since that has a certain "Clintonian" parsing about it? We sincerely hope whomever said this is not in any way shape or form responsible for Democratic "messaging," because that sentence was pure gibberish.

Hmmph. OK, removing Grammar Police hat....

Anthony Weiner is, apparently the gift that keeps on giving. Which is why we're giving him his seventh Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award (incidentally, on the all-time list, this moves him ahead of such stalwarts of bad behavior as Jay "Rocky IV" Rockefeller IV, Rahm Emanuel, and Rod Blagojevich, who each only have six MDDOTW awards to their name).

Here's the sordid penultimate chapter to this drama, in full detail:

Former New York congressman Anthony Weiner, the disgraced politician whose "sexting" scandals shattered his career, admitted Friday in federal court to sending sexual material to a 15-year-old girl.

Weiner, 52, pleaded guilty to transferring obscene material to a minor -- a crime that will require him to register as a sex offender and could mean years in prison.

"I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse," he told the court. "I apologize to everyone I have hurt. I apologize to the teenage girl, whom I mistreated so badly."

. . .

The criminal charge -- transferring obscenity to a minor -- carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, according to federal authorities. Under the plea deal, Weiner agreed to register as a sex offender and not to appeal a sentence between 21 and 27 months in prison. His sentencing hearing is set for Sept. 8.

"Weiner's conduct was not only reprehensible, but a federal crime, one for which he is now convicted and will be sentenced," Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said in a statement.

This is all especially relevant this week, with all the attention on James Comey. Because, if you'll remember back, this latest "can't keep it in your pants" scandal from the appropriately-named Weiner (his third such public sexting scandal, for those keeping count at home) led directly to much bigger consequences for everyone:

During a federal investigation, agents seized a laptop that Weiner had shared with his estranged wife, Huma Abedin, who was a top Hillary Clinton aide. On the laptop, agents discovered numerous emails that Clinton had sent to Abedin, prompting an announcement from then-F.B.I. Director James B. Comey in the days leading up to the presidential election that the agency was reopening its investigation into Clinton's emails.

Comey then announced that no charges would be brought in the case. But Clinton, and others, have said the scandal was partly the reason she lost the presidential election to Donald Trump.

So thanks for all that, Anthony. Thanks a whole lot. Two years in the pokey seems like a rather light punishment, at least to us.

[Anthony Weiner is now a private citizen and our policy is not to provide information on such persons, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 437 (5/19/17)

It's been one of those weeks when we could easily have filled up the talking points solely with what Republicans are saying about their president, which makes it so much easier on Democrats (all you have to do is quote a conservative in weeks like this one).

In fact, it was so easy this week to find critical things Republicans were saying, most of the following were uttered (or tweeted) by Tuesday -- after the "secrets to Russia in the Oval Office" scandal broke, but before the "Comey took notes" story broke.

We did have to stick one funny one in at the end, just because we know quite well how exhausting this week has been for politics-watchers. So we thought everyone deserved a good laugh, to end with.

 

1
   A downward spiral

[These first four are all from the same omnibus column, we should mention.] Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, who is also the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spoke about the Trump White House early in the week.

Obviously, they are in a downward spiral right now and have got to figure out a way to come to grips with all that's happening. The chaos that is being created by the lack of discipline is creating... a worrisome environment.

 

2
   Step down

These next three are all tweets from Republicans, all immediately after the "secrets to Russia in the Oval Office" scandal hit the news. The first is from David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush. He certainly doesn't mince words:

The president should resign.

 

3
   Treason

From Eliot A. Cohen, a former State Department advisor to Condoleezza Rice:

This is appalling. If accidental, it would be a firing offense for anyone else. If deliberate, it would be treason.

 

4
   Deeply disturbing

Senator John McCain was a little more reserved in his reaction. But not much:

If true, deeply disturbing...

 

5
   Useful fool

Michael Hayden took the time to write an opinion piece rather than just tweet his reaction. This one's a throwback for anyone who remembers Cold War terminology. Hayden is now "a principal at the Chertoff Group and visiting professor at George Mason University" and was also head of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency during George W. Bush's time in office.

In November, a few days before the election, I tried to parse Donald Trump's strange affection for Vladimir Putin and the various contacts that members of his campaign had had with folks in Russia.

The best explanation I could come up with was something the Russians call polezni durak, the "useful fool." That's a term from the Soviet era describing the naive individual whom the Kremlin usually held in contempt but who could be induced to do things on its behalf.

Six months later, it is disappointing to report, the term "useful fool" still seems a pretty apt description.

 

6
   It's time to quit!

OK, we had a few short tweets today, so we're balancing it out with a long one to close this "Republican-on-Republican violence" theme. Rick Wilson, a GOP consultant and current columnist for the Daily Beast, wrote an extraordinary letter to everyone who works for Donald Trump. This jaw-dropping column was titled: "If you work for Trump, it's time to quit: After the Comey firing and the Russia intel leak, the I'm-taking-one-for-the-team ship has sailed." This, from a guy who describes himself as: "a Republican political consultant for almost 30 years," no less! Here's an extended excerpt from this scathing article, which is well worth reading in full:

Whether you're a 20-something fresh off the campaign trail, or a seasoned Washington insider serving in the Cabinet, by now you're painfully aware that you're not making America great again; you're barely making it to the end of the daily news cycle before your verbally incontinent boss, the putative leader of the free world, once again steers the proverbial car into a ditch. On every front, you're faced with legal, political and moral hazards. The president's job, and yours, is a lot harder than it looked, and you know the problem originates in the Oval Office.

You hate that people are shying away from administration jobs in droves: Just this week, in rapid succession, Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Trey Gowdy withdrew their names from consideration as replacements for former F.B.I. Director James Comey, the guy your boss fired. Whatever department you're in, it's a safe bet that it's a whispering graveyard of empty appointments and unfilled jobs.

. . .

Trump's fumbles have left many members of Congress ducking town hall meetings like they're in the witness protection program. The tax bill and the rest of Trump's agenda are deader and more pungent than six-day-old fish. Maybe your particular bureau is still afloat, but you're really not doing much except playing defense and wondering which of your colleagues is leaking to The Washington Post.

You learned quickly that your job isn't actually to serve the nation, manage your agency or fulfill the role you ostensibly play according to the White House org chart. In reality, you spend most of your time fluffing Trump's ego. Either that or you're making excuses for not being a more aggressive suck-up.

. . .

So, ask yourself: When this regime falls, do you want to be among those who said "not me," or do you want to go out like a Ba'ath Party generalissimo?

Sticking with Trump to the bitter end and pretending the unfolding chaos is just "fake news" won't save your reputation as the walls close in. It won't ease the judgment of history. It won't do anything to polish up your future Wikipedia entry.

Cutting ties with a man who is destructive to our values, profoundly divisive, contemptuous of the rule of law and incontrovertibly unfit to serve in the highest office in the land just might. Do it now.

 

7
   THAT THING THAT TRUMP DID

As promised, we've got some humor to end on. Daniel Drezner, the author of the "Spoiler Alerts" blog at the Washington Post, is heading out on the road to push his new book. So he left behind a "Generic White House Scandal Column Generator" to fill in. This deserves a freakin' Pulitzer -- or at the very least a comedy award of some sort or another. We encourage everyone to read the full hilarious article. Enjoy!

Link to bombshell news story here documenting [THAT THING TRUMP DID].

Quote from bombshell story:

. . .

Embed salient 1980s movie chestnut/Star Wars/Star Trek reference that effortlessly connects to [THAT THING TRUMP DID.]

Paragraph relaying White House denials of [THAT THING TRUMP DID].

Subsequent links to [WASHINGTON POST, REUTERS, NEW YORK TIMES, BUZZFEED] stories that corroborate the original report.

Additional links to [POLITICO, AXIOS, DAILY BEAST, NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST] stories composed of White House staff providing variations of how Trump is a toddler and can't be managed but they could totally do a better job of it if other idiot staffers weren't giving him lousy advice.

Quote from conservative commentator for whom [THAT THING TRUMP DID] is the final straw for at least two weeks.

Paragraph with quotes from [BREITBART, THE FEDERALIST, NRO] in which anti-anti-Trumpers suggest that the mainstream media hasn't reported [THAT THING TRUMP DID] accurately at all.

Tweets from Trump confirming everything in the initial bombshell story and undercutting everyone who played down the story in public.

. . .

Close with witty comment about how [THAT THING TRUMP DID] will at least distract the media from [THAT THING TRUMP DID YESTERDAY].

Copy-edit.

Select the correct photo/caption/headline.

Drain large bottle of whiskey.

Repeat as necessary.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

299 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [437] -- That Thing That Trump Did”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Looks like I called that right -- while writing and editing this, the story of how Trump called Comey a nutjob to the Russians in the Oval Office broke. Apologies for not including it.

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    well done, now break out the whiskey.

    :)

    JL

  3. [3] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    The most jaw-dropping part of the 'nut-job' story (that CW tragically MISSED because he was ostensibly 'too busy' writing 'the words'! Sad!) was 'Trump added "I am not under investigation".'

    Yeah! Thanks, that totally needed to be clarified!

    ' "Also Sergey, my inauguration crowds were the biggest, ever: the biggest ever. Believe me, so big. The biggest," the president continued, his voice gaining urgency as he squeezed Kislyak's hand. "It is very hard, very hard, actually impossible - everybody said it - the Electoral College for a Republican. Incredible accomplishment, believe me!".

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Did the latest leak happen just as Air Force One was taking off - in other words did somebody wait to leak this until the point where 45 was gone so he couldn't charge around the White House trying to find who leaked this?

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    my father in law, a staunch conservative, sent me an article by peggy noonan at the journal. i may not agree with her philosophical bent, but i think she hit it out of the park with her analysis. the gist: democracy is not a game, and that goes for everybody.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/democracy-is-not-your-plaything-1495149082

    i think that as comical as it may seem at times, everybody needs to start taking this stuff seriously. from the stumbling, bumbling, loose-lipped president, to the democrats who delight in watching him falter, to the press who swim around like sharks in a feeding frenzy, to the republicans who wash their hands and twiddle their thumbs while the administration burns. this ain't a joke, people.

    JL

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    I hadn't seen the MIDOTW award video - you are right - what genius!

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry Peggy, I saw this coming and did everything I could to warn you. Find somebody else to pin your guilt on Ms. Noonan.

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @neil,

    Did you read the piece?

  9. [9] 
    Paula wrote:

    [7] neilm: seconded.

    I don't subscribe and couldn't read the piece, but I can say we Hillary supporters took the threat represented by DT very seriously and were not just horrified but practically suicidal with fear and concern when that human disaster became POTUS. There happens to be quite an active resistance going on all over the country as well.

    We may delight in watching him falter, but it is gallows delight, and it is relieved delight because if he wasn't such an unbelievably incompetent self-destructive arrested-development-case things would be worse by orders of magnitude.

    Democrats have been taking this seriously from the start -- its Republicans who have been treating our democracy as an inconvenient, disposable obstacle to their goals.

  10. [10] 
    Paula wrote:

    Chris: I loved the projected message on the Trump Hotel -- saw that the other night. Wonderful! And the Drezner piece was hilarious.

    Next big story -- assuming DT doesn't create an international incident while out of the country -- may be Pence's more and more pathetic attempts to pretend he's like Sgt. Schultz: HE KNOWS NOTHING! HE SAW NOTHING!

    Elijah Cummings' letter informing him about Flynn last Fall is making the rounds. How many ways can Pence claim to have missed being informed about Flynn?

  11. [11] 
    TheStig wrote:

    nypoet-

    I'm not bowled over by Noonan's scold.

    Peggy, you write for a more gentile arm of the Evil Empire. Boss Murdoc puts food on your table. You are a more sane voice than most in that echo chamber, but if you are so horrified, why are still taking their money? I think you could sneak out of the office and find another job. You know, make a sacrifice, lead by example.

    Ridicule is powerful. Trump used it well. Is his opposition supposed to unilaterally disarm? Not on yer fuckin' life!

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ny [8] Fair question. No, I don't have a WSJ subscription so had to go on your description. Seems like the article was significantly different. My bad.

    When I refer to e.g. A NY Times or Economist link that I know is protected I try to be very descriptive as I know many of us don't have access.

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    everybody needs to start taking this stuff seriously. from the stumbling, bumbling, loose-lipped president, to the democrats who delight in watching him falter, to the press who swim around like sharks in a feeding frenzy, to the republicans who wash their hands and twiddle their thumbs while the administration burns. this ain't a joke, people.

    Liz made the exact point last week or the week before. We saw how SHE was treated..

    The problem is, when it comes to the good of the country or taking down Trump, the Left invariably chooses the latter at the expense of the former...

    The Right is hardly blameless, but the thing is, according to ya'all (NEN) the Left is supposed to be BETTER then the Right..

    Not from where I sit..

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:
  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem is, when it comes to the good of the country or taking down Trump, the Left invariably chooses the latter at the expense of the former...

    Taking down 45 is good for the country, and not only good, imperative. And the sooner the better. And we know we are going to get Pence instead, who, from a partisan perspective, will be worse for the Democrats, but better for the country. At least Pence doesn't lie continuously, is marginally respectful of the constitution, and isn't surprised to find out the healthcare is complicated. I strongly disagree with a lot of the policies that Pence proposes, but at least I'm not worried he will do something venal.

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    Taking down 45 is good for the country, and not only good, imperative.

    That's an opinion...

    Put it another way, if the ONLY way to take down Trump was to cause GREATER harm to this country than would occur if Trump was left in place, ya'all (NEN) would opt for taking down Trump, regardless of ANY consequences...

    And, as Liz pointed out and as JL pointed out, *THAT* is a problem...

    but at least I'm not worried he will do something venal.

    I'll remind you of that if we do, indeed, get President Pence.. :D

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's an opinion.

    So is the opposite. I just have the preponderance of evidence supporting my opinion.

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Does anyone have any actual FACTS that support ANYTHING that Trump has supposedly said??

    I am not talking about "anonymous sources" or "WaPoop said it so it HAS to be true" type facts..

    Doesn't anyone have ANY incontrovertible FACTS to support the accusations against President Trump??

    Give me an accusation and the FACTS to support the accusation...

    Just one..

    Can anyone do that??

    I won't hold my breath...

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    So is the opposite. I just have the preponderance of evidence supporting my opinion.

    Biased evidence that ignores facts that are inconvenient..

    See #18...

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    Fact: Trump fired Comey

    Fact: Trump said on public TV it was because of the Russian investigation

    Fact: That is obstruction of justice, a criminal offence

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Wow....

    Ask for incontrovertible FACTS and all of the sudden, everyone get's real quiet...

    Let me start..

    Ya'all have accused President Trump of calling FBI Director Comey a "nut job"...

    Does ANYONE have *ANY* FACTS to support that accusation??

    ANY facts at all??

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Fact: Trump said on public TV it was because of the Russian investigation

    Did he??

    What were his EXACT words...

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    This is just like TRUMP IS A RACIST all over again..

    For DAYS, ya'all went on and on about how Trump is a racist and Trump made racist comments.

    But then when we went thru EXACTLY what Trump said, when we examined THE FACTS, it turns out that the accusation was total and complete bullshit and ya'all were forced to concede that..

    Let's return to that wonderful time where FACTS was god around here.. :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    OK.. So Trump calling Director Comey a "nut job"...

    FALSE ACCUSATION...

    What's next???

    President Trump released classified intelligence to the Russians..

    Source: ANONYMOUS Sources who are not in government and who WERE NOT at the meeting in question...

    FALSE ACCUSATION...

    Next???

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Let's return to that wonderful time where FACTS was god around here..

    Alright. Watergate (since no one has yet promulgated a variation of Godwin's Law that forbids repeated use of that analogy):

    Anyone who's seen All the President's Men knows that the Washington Post has a policy that political stories with anonymous sources require at least two independently confirmed sources before the story can go to print.

    Luckily, Woodward and Bernstein had a 'deep-state' source: Deep Throat (who turned out to have been an Associate Director of the FBI, Mark Felt).

    No such 'deep' sourcing is needed in the Trump investigation. Not only is Trump openly admitting to wrongdoing in interviews, but apparently WH staff are falling over each other to repeat Trump's latest gaffe to national reporters.

    Or as Conservative David Brooks put it on NPR yesterday: "And so that means you not only have some Deep Throat deep in the administration somewhere as happened in Watergate, it seems like there are squads of Deep Throats."

    Since WH staff, unlike many other govt. positions, are usually hand-picked, or brought from the campaign, it means that most of these leaks are coming from Trump loyalists, who find themselves appalled by the president's behavior.

    And Trump keeps confirming these anonymously sourced stories, bragging to everyone, from Lester Holt to the Russians.

    As Brooks notes wryly: "you know, we used to have a better class of criminal [Presidents]."

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    You mentioned something about you having FACTS???

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Not only is Trump openly admitting to wrongdoing in interviews

    For example...????

    My gods, it's like pulling teeth....

    Like I said.. TRUMP IS A RACIST all over again....

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    So far we have two UNPROVEN accusations...

    Are ya'all going to make me do all the work??

    I would have thought ya'all would JUMP at the chance to really stick it to President Trump...

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Here, lazy guy. There are a dozen more like it just a few clicks away.

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    I know what ya'all are doing..

    You are scrambling around trying to find some actual FACTS to support all the hysterical accusations of the last week..

    No wonder it's taking so long.. :D

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Here, lazy guy. There are a dozen more like it just a few clicks away.

    I didn't ask for LINKS..

    I asked for FACTS...

    You claim that President Trump admitted wrong doing..

    Fine...

    Provide the verbatim quote that proves this..

    If you can't, you have no facts to support your hysterical accusations...

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Perhaps I was too subtle, but that was my point in [25]. During Watergate, our only sources of information, until the story 'broke open', were anonymous leaks.

    And Nixon loyalists said pretty much what you're repeating here: "Anonymous sources? What Credibility do they have?"

    As well as, "the President's words are being twisted."

    Keep whistling in the dark, Michale, because the tune is starting to sound familiar.

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just got back from an anti-Trump protest where people put anti-Trump signs on their cars and drive by Trump's golf course.
    Seems pretty lame compared to shining the pictures on Trump's Hotel.
    Apparently they are doing this every Saturday (the operative word being they). I just stopped by this week to pass out some flyers.
    There was about 20 cars in the group. They said that in previous weeks (this was week three) there were Trump supporters at their rally point at the end so I went with them as I am also trying to reach Trump supporters.
    There were no Trump supporters at the rally point. I don't know if that means a lack of interest on the part of Trump supporters or that the anti-Trump group was too small to bother with a counter protest.
    But those are the facts.

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    I get it, I really do..

    It's a lot more fun to just spout off hysterically without having to actually SUPPORT the spouting with facts..

    Sorry to burst ya'all's bubble, but kindergarten play time is over.. It's time for adults to converse...

    Come with facts or just shut the hell up....

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.

    So what does that prove??

    President Trump is basically saying that there are no facts to support the Russia thing, which is a true and correct statement...

    President Trump further states that the Russia thing was just an excuse for a shitty candidate.. Which is another true and correct statement..

    Nothing in that statement "proves" anything except that President Trump isn't very eloquent..

    Still no facts...

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's a lot more fun to just spout off hysterically without having to actually SUPPORT the spouting with facts..

    Can you say, Benghazi?

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    And Nixon loyalists said pretty much what you're repeating here: "Anonymous sources? What Credibility do they have?"

    Which is EXACTLY what ya'all said when Obama was being assailed by "anonymous sources"...

    So, once again, ya'all do a 180 SOLELY based on Party ideology...

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Can you say, Benghazi?

    So, ya'all are saying that ya'all are EXACTLY like Republicans with Benghazi..

    OK, I can accept that... :D

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Or, more accurately, ya'all are acting EXACTLY like you accused the GOP of acting over Benghazi..

    OK, I'll still accept that as ya'all's position...

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Nothing in that statement "proves" anything except that President Trump isn't very eloquent.

    Being dense is not an excuse, either for you or the President. His statement confirms that he fired the Director of the FBI because of the investigation, whatever merits he thinks it had.

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    Being dense is not an excuse, either for you or the President. His statement confirms that he fired the Director of the FBI because of the investigation, whatever merits he thinks it had.

    Let me put it this way, since you are obviously flailing..

    Can you take that statement of Trump's into a court of law and prove Obstruction??

    No, you cannot...

    So, yer just wasting my time and embarrassing yourself..

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    His statement confirms that he fired the Director of the FBI because of the investigation, whatever merits he thinks it had.

    No, it doesn't...

    Trump made two separate statements that really had nothing to do with each other..

    The "I just decided to do it" statement was in reference to the Rosenstein recommendation.. Then Trump went off on a tangent and talked about the made up Russia Trump collusion story..

    Any defense attorney could tear to shreds any prosecution case based on this statement..

    So, you still have no facts to support the accusation..

    So far, 3 accusations... ZERO provable...

    "Just the facts, ma'am"
    -Joe Friday

    :D

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The "I just decided to do it" statement was in reference to the Rosenstein recommendation.. Then Trump went off on a tangent

    Nice try. It was a single paragraph. I heard it with my own ears, and so did everyone else.

    Any defense attorney could tear to shreds any prosecution case based on this statement..

    You mean any defense attorney would try to 'shred' the statement to make it seem as if it were two separate statements when anyone with two brain cells to rub together can hear that it isn't.

    That's what defense attorneys do: granulate the evidence, and separate it as much as possible from the shitstorm of related behavior that usually accompanies it.

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Rosenstein himself confirmed to a room full of congressmen that the decision was made before he wrote his memo.

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Nice try. It was a single paragraph. I heard it with my own ears, and so did everyone else.

    Which proves absolutely nothing...

    ESPECIALLY since ya'all have proven beyond any doubt that ya'all will only hear what ya'all WANT to hear...

    Rosenstein himself confirmed to a room full of congressmen that the decision was made before he wrote his memo.

    Which supports President Trump's statement that he just decided to do it, regardless of the Rosenstein recommendation..

    At BEST, all you have is inference or innuendo..

    NO FACTS....

    Yer 0 for 3.... Want to move on??

  47. [47] 
    Paula wrote:

    This column is perfect:

    The Trump presidency is the discovery that what you thought was a man in a bear suit is just a bear. Suddenly the fact that he wouldn’t play by the rules makes total sense. It wasn’t that he refused to, that he was playing a long game. It was that he was a wild animal who eats fish and climbs trees, and English words were totally unintelligible to him. In retrospect, you should have suspected that after he just straight-up ate a guy. But at the time everyone cheered. It was good TV. Also, he was your bear

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/05/17/the-president-is-not-a-child-hes-something-worse/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na&utm_term=.ff7e5094e6c4

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    This reminds of MY COUSIN VINNY..

    He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you.

    When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick.
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    An "ironclad" case that, once the REAL FACTS are looked at and examined closely, totally and completely falls apart..

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    The Trump presidency is the discovery that what you thought was a man in a bear suit is just a bear. Suddenly the fact that he wouldn’t play by the rules makes total sense. It wasn’t that he refused to, that he was playing a long game. It was that he was a wild animal who eats fish and climbs trees, and English words were totally unintelligible to him. In retrospect, you should have suspected that after he just straight-up ate a guy. But at the time everyone cheered. It was good TV. Also, he was your bear

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/05/17/the-president-is-not-a-child-hes-something-worse/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na&utm_term=.ff7e5094e6c4

    And THAT is ya'all's ENTIRE case...

    WaPoop hysteria..... Not a SINGLE relevant fact to be found...

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [47]"Now here is someone who thinks juggling hand-painted Fabergé eggs will impress you. Not because he is so supremely confident in his ability to juggle, but because he literally doesn’t know what they are."

    "He’s a human Failure to Read the User’s Manual."

    Good find, Paula.

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all got a rather decent "preponderance of evidence" case, I'll give you that...

    Which might be great for ya'all if you were suing President Trump in Small Claims court....

    But to REMOVE a sitting President!???

    Com'on.. I KNOW for a fact that ya'all... well, MOST of ya'all.... are not THAT stoopid....

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    [47]"Now here is someone who thinks juggling hand-painted Fabergé eggs will impress you. Not because he is so supremely confident in his ability to juggle, but because he literally doesn’t know what they are."

    "He’s a human Failure to Read the User’s Manual."

    Good find, Paula.

    And THERE is ya'all's EXACT problem..

    You think crap and bullshit like that is a "good find" and makes ya'all's case...

    It does ya'all's case a WORLD of hurt because it goes to bias....

  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It does ya'all's case a WORLD of hurt because it goes to bias....

    The world is full of bias, Michale. It's a survival mechanism. You've made that point before yourself, I think.

    Perhaps you're confusing personal bias (as in, political preference) with institutional bias, which is discriminatory, and should be avoided.

    In this case, the article answers the question for Democrats (and others) "why does my spidey sense tell me this man is dangerous?"

    It answers: "because he's dangerously incognizant."

    C'mon. White House staffers are telling reporters that Trump has to be spoon-fed information in order to absorb it. NATO ministers report that they're being asked to keep speeches under four minutes so that Trump's famously short attention span isn't tested.

    Does that sound like NORMAL to you?

  54. [54] 
    Paula wrote:

    Sgt. Schultz: I am not yet prepared to lay down my weapons against you just yet, as/per your Thursday request.

    You are now demanding other people provide incontrovertible proof of DT's crimes. Funnily enough, people outside the rightwing bubble understand the roles played by reporters, investigators, lawyers, judges and observers. I'll let you work out what the differences are. Here's a hint: we're "observers".

    But, no matter. To the man who doesn't want to be convinced, virtually no evidence will do. (I made that point the other day about GOP rules: Republicans enjoy the presumption of innocence, no matter what the evidence. Democrats are presumed guilty, no matter what the evidence.) You continue to illustrate the rules perfectly.

    The "skeptical position can never be defeated" because it is always possible to just keep saying "no, I don't buy it" indefinitely. Which is what you, Schultzie, will do (and are doing) to anyone who bothers trying to make the case against 45 for your benefit.

    My advice Sarge is that you turn off FOX and whatever Hate-radio jock(s) you favor, and spend all of next month immersed in the MSM, online and in print. Skip the white supremacist websites, Breibart, etc. Pretend you're on a anthropological expedition with the goal of trying to understand those baffling liberals and other normal people who believe things you can't fathom.

    It isn't our job to convince you of anything through our exertions. It is your job to subject your beliefs and assumptions to rigorous scrutiny -- if you give a damn. Personally, I don't think you do. I think you just like being a liberal-baiter. I think your problem now is that 45 is so ginormously incompetent and dangerous as POTUS even you can't help but see it, however much you may want to suppress your recognition.

    If you want to retreat into your bubble of denial there ain't a thing anyone else can do about it. You, and only you, are responsible for how you decide to proceed. You can be a grown-up or you can mimic 45 and off-load responsibility on everyone else. That is what I think you will do.

    I am prepared to be surprised, however, Schultzie. I'd applaud.

  55. [55] 
    Paula wrote:

    [50] Balthy: yeah, there's a bunch of great lines.

    It is bringing your drunk relative to a party where you need to impress people for work, but 24 hours a day, and your co-workers are the entire world, and some of them have nukes.

    It is like expecting a cardboard cutout of a pro wrestler to perform open-heart surgery.

    It is like watching a golden retriever try to disable a bomb. The dog can’t determine which is the red button and which is the green button. It can’t see color. It’s a dog, for Pete’s sake. What did you expect?

    It is like leaving a horse unsupervised in a room with cake, only the cake is also your child.

    She's briliant.

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [55] It reminds me of Stephen Colbert's defense (which you've surely heard already) when he was accused of being too 'hard' on the President :

    "I've got jokes, he's got the nuclear codes. It's a fair fight."

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    In this case, the article answers the question for Democrats (and others) "why does my spidey sense tell me this man is dangerous?"

    Unfortunately, your spidey sense is politically enslaved and is not admissible as evidence..

    Does that sound like NORMAL to you?

    If President Trump was a regular politician you would have a point...

    But he's not, so you don't..

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    Sgt. Schultz: I am not yet prepared to lay down my weapons against you just yet, as/per your Thursday request.

    That's fine.. The offer is always on the table when yer ready to step up...

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    C'mon. White House staffers are telling reporters that Trump has to be spoon-fed information in order to absorb it. NATO ministers report that they're being asked to keep speeches under four minutes so that Trump's famously short attention span isn't tested.

    No...

    Left Wing MSM is telling you that White House staffers are telling them..

    THAT is my entire point..

    You are taking as gospel information from organizations who, 89% of the time, attack the President..

    If you can find any logic in that, by all means.. Enlighten me....

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Don't ya'all find it strange that *ALL* of the accusations against Trump are based on ANONYMOUS sources..

    NO ONE is willing to go on the record...

    For anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together, that SHOULD be a YUUUGGEEE tip off...

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    NATO ministers report that they're being asked to keep speeches under four minutes so that Trump's famously short attention span isn't tested.

    PROVE IT

    You see you're problem..

    You spew out all this bullshit and CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE **ANY** of it....

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    But here we have ANOTHER Trump accusation..

    That NATO ministers are asked to limit the time of their speeches because of Trump's alleged short attention span...

    Any *FACTS* to support the accusation???

    {{chirrrrrppppp}} {{chiirrrrpppppp}}

    Didn't think so.....

    0 for 4.....

    And the beat goes on......

  63. [63] 
    Paula wrote:

    [61] Schultzie:

    It isn't our job to convince you of anything through our exertions. It is your job to subject your beliefs and assumptions to rigorous scrutiny -- if you give a damn. Personally, I don't think you do. I think you just like being a liberal-baiter.

    Your beloved, btw, curtsied to the Saudi prince. They gave 45 a nice shiny medal and he forgot all about "radical Islamic terrorism" because he was dazzled by the shine. They played him like a flutophone.

  64. [64] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You are taking as gospel, talking points from a White House that, 99% of the time attacks organizations whose entire raison d'etre is finding and revealing the truth.

    I would remind you that Righties never had a problem believing and promoting reports by the MSM when Billy Clinton was the target.

    In the present case, some of those reports are coming from respected, but right-leaning publications like the WSJ. Have they, too, been 'corrupted' like the NYT?

    It's the same old game since Nixon: attack the messenger.

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    NO ONE is willing to go on the record...

    Comey is going on the record.

    45 himself went on the record when he said about firing Comey "And, in fact, when I decided to just do it [i.e. fire Comey], I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story".

    You may not be able to deal with reality Michale, and in that respect you resemble 45, however reality isn't going away, especially now there is an old-time G-Man on the case.

    Did you read about Mueller's reasoning for wearing white shirts when he was running the FBI? If not, let me know and I'll post a link. Speaks volumes about the man.

    Did you also know that Comey called on Mueller to resign to protest illegal actions by Cheney and Bush 2 called Mueller to confirm, and Mueller said he would back Comey?

    Did you also know that Mueller was confirmed to an exceptional extra two years by Obama and thus was the longest running FBI director since Hoover? He is the only FBI director to have been confirmed by two Presidents of different parties.

    You may trash Mueller's reputation by implying that he is just going to go into the Oval Office to tell 45 he is off the hook and as Republican buddies they are going to turn the spotlight on Obama and Hillary, but I personally think the man has demonstrated more than enough integrity.

    As I stated earlier, I expect no evidence of collusion between 45's campaign and Russia to be found, because I don't think there is any, but if Mueller feels that there is a larger story around Russian influence on the election and the current White House, and starts digging into 45's business dealings, the likelihood of a resignation/pardon deal dramatically increase. The fallout of this will harm the Pence administration, probably irreparably from a 2020 perspective.

    This will be good for the country, it needs to be shown that decency and professionalism are required of the holder of the highest position in the country.

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    On the NATO summit:

    Every major news organization in the world vs. your skepticism, which should I believe?

    hmmmmmmmmmm....

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula: It isn't our job to convince you of anything through our exertions. It is your job to subject your beliefs and assumptions to rigorous scrutiny -- if you give a damn.

    Well put.

  68. [68] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neilm [65]: As I stated earlier, I expect no evidence of collusion between 45's campaign and Russia to be found, because I don't think there is any

    Flynn discussed lifting sanctions and then denied it. Sessions and Kushner had contacts with the Russians and then denied it. Same with Manafort and Kushner.

    Roger Stone claimed to have had a 'short' conversation with Guccifer, but not about hacked material.

    Really? The odds that all of these pre-election conversations with Russian spymasters were about the weather stretches credulity.

  69. [69] 
    Paula wrote:

    [67] Balthasar: thanks!

  70. [70] 
    Paula wrote:

    [68] And there is the question of the Ukraine sanctions in the RNC platform.

  71. [71] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The following comment is based on real American for Disabilities Act policies, lightly edited :)

    How do you solve a problem like The Donald? The American Disabilities Act (ADA) could provide the answer for fair minded, but desperate Americans who want to avert apocalypse, economic, environmental or nuclear, and who don't think the VP is any goddamn solution. ADA requires that persons with disabilities, including learning disabilities, enjoy the same opportunities that are available to persons without disabilities. As a 35 year old American citizen, Mr. Trump should have the same opportunity to be President as any other US citizen of sufficient age and birthplace.

    Specific learning disabilities recognized by ADA include difficulty in one of more of the following: Listening, reading, speaking, reasoning, organizing, and managing time and social skills. Bingo! Mr. Trump shows noteworthy difficulty with ALL of the above aspects of learning! Two trifectas and a spare! Individuals with learning disabilities may have extraordinary talents and learning capabilities. A person who reads poorly may be a great mechanic, or a great salesman, or have access to especially talented media consultants and lawyers.

    Potential barriers for individuals with learning disabilities include:

    Inappropriately designed instruction manuals (US Constitution)
    Long or complex directions (Constitution, legislation)
    Noisy or visually distracting work settings (Twitter, Oval Office, Black tractor cabs, Air Force 1)

    There are also attitudinal/behavioral barriers facing Mr. Trump:

    Impatient or inflexible job supervisors (citizens) or peers (Putin, guy who runs Mexico, guy who runs Canada)
    Lack of understanding (all press except Fox news and RT television, Democrats and even a few Republicans)

    Many things can be done to minimize these barriers:

    Provide auxiliary aids (in ear headphones, hand puppets, body doubles)

    Reduce visual and auditory distractions (Twitter, smart phones).

    Change activity site (Boca del Mar or a refreshing trip to the Middle East - don't forget the catsup)

    Shut out and belittle the press.

    What is the best way to Ensure Cost-Effective ADA Compliance?:

    Consult experts in the area of learning disabilities (rent a large hall)
    Match job skills with Trump abilities (exaggeration, pouting, shouting, stiffing vendors and lawyering up)

    Bottom Line:

    Ask Trump about his needs
    Show respect and sensitivity to his limitations
    Be creative and use what works. The British are good at this, don't be ashamed to ask. No, you cannot spank Mr. Trump.

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    Your beloved, btw, curtsied to the Saudi prince.

    PROVE IT

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Comey is going on the record.

    And when he does, we will evaluate what he says..

    But, to date, NO ONE is going on the record..

    Why is that??

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    Every major news organization in the world vs. your skepticism, which should I believe?

    And yet, you cannot post ONE CITE..

    So, who should I believe??

    You, with your well known hysterical bias???

    Not likely...

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    I have asked numerous times for FACTS..

    And NONE is forthcoming...

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    You may not be able to deal with reality Michale,

    I am the ONLY one here who is BEGGING for reality..

    But NONE of ya'all can provide it..

    76 comments and not a SINGLE relevant fact to be found...

    This is TRUMP IS A RACIST all over again..

    Pure, unadulterated, hysterical Bullshit...

    When are ya'all going to have *ANY* facts???

  77. [77] 
    Paula wrote:

    [72] Sarge: You prove he DIDN'T!

    Prove he didn't curtsy!

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    So far we have 2 unsubstantiated claims..

    Balthy's claim that NATO ministers were asked to limit their speeches.. NO SUBSTANTIATION...

    Paula's claim that Trump curtsied to a Saudi Prince.. NO SUBSTANTIATION...

    And so it goes... And so it goes...

  79. [79] 
    Paula wrote:

    I saw video: 45 was visibly delighted at getting his medal and he curtsied! So cute! Not the horrible humiliation of America as was asserted when President Obama bowed. No, no, just the cute widdle potus being pleased with his new toy!

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    [72] Sarge: You prove he DIDN'T!

    Prove he didn't curtsy!

    And THEREIN lies the crux of ya'all's credibility problem.. :D

    It's up to ya'all to prove yer accusations...

    If ya can't, then yer full of sheet.... :D

    Trust me, Paula... Yer not doing yerself or your cause any favors by making outlandish and unfounded accusations and requiring that a negative be proven...

    That is the EXACT problem with the ENTIRE Anti-Trump hysteria..

    Ya'all throw out ALL of this totally unfounded BS and expect it to be refuted...

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    I saw video: 45 was visibly delighted at getting his medal and he curtsied! So cute! Not the horrible humiliation of America as was asserted when President Obama bowed. No, no, just the cute widdle potus being pleased with his new toy!

    And now you take to out and out lying to try and make your case against President Trump...

    There was no video.. You, madam, are full of shit.. :D

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    [72] Sarge: You prove he DIDN'T!

    For the record, that's Lieutenant (or EllTee) to you...

  83. [83] 
    Paula wrote:

    Sgt. Schultz can't prove 45 didn't curtsy, but he's always demanding we prove other people "didn't" do things. Its the beauty of demanding people prove a negative -- not possible.

    Just like I can't prove Schultzie isn't a Russian stooge. I can't prove Schultzie isn't passing along rightwing propaganda for money. I can't prove Schultzie doesn't have secret meetings with Sean Hannity during which they swear blood fealty to the orange man and take turns licking each other's feet as proxies for the donald's horny appendages. I can't prove Schultzie doesn't harbor gay fantasies about DT. I can't prove Schultzie never danced naked with other white supremacists.

  84. [84] 
    Paula wrote:
  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:

    Really? The odds that all of these pre-election conversations with Russian spymasters were about the weather stretches credulity.

    Don't get me wrong, I think that there were deals cut behind the scenes with Russia to try to get the sanctions removed so the oil companies can get back to work in Russia, but the question here is collusion to influence the election. On that point I think we will find no evidence of the sort that says "Things are bad in the press for 45, can you release a few more emails?"

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    hehehehehe

    My gods, you have REALLY gotten desperate in your Anti-Trump hysteria....

    Looks to me like President Trump might have stumbled a bit...

    Now you can claim that he was drunk... :D

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/20/trump-saudi-gold-medal-collar-of-abdulaziz-al-saud-newday.cnn

    You are right Paula - what a pathetic wimp - you can tell that he never meets any of the A-List (because he is an ignorant, self centered boor) so gets overwhelmed when the real A-List agree to be in the same room as him.

    So much for Mr Tough-America-First Guy.

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, all these comments and STILL not a relevant fact to be found....

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    GREAT AGAIN: Unlike Obama, Trump doesn’t bow to Saudi king
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/great-unlike-obama-trump-doesnt-bow-saudi-king/

  90. [90] 
    Paula wrote:

    [87] neilm: Yep!

  91. [91] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    So.... Aside from the fact that M has gone full on Cartman, meaning that we can expect to see 250 comments telling us how wrong we are using nothing but declarative statements as if they are facts, oh joy....

    So I noticed this little short lived gem on Reuters splash page yesterday. It certainly leads me to believe that it really is too good to be true that the republicans would actually appoint someone in such a manner that they would get to the bottom of the matter.

    Rosenstien's answer to congress about the Comey firing certainly makes much more sense now that I see why Muller as SP was selected.

    Us treasonous Americans had better keep an eye on the matter and let the bought and paid for ones know that such shenanigans will not be tolerated.

    We may have to demand multiple special " insert title here" or select commitees to get the job done.

  92. [92] 
    Paula wrote:

    Schultzie:

    Looks to me like President Trump might have stumbled a bit...

    Now you can claim that he was drunk…

    The donald doesn't drink.

    Stumbled a bit aye?

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

    Nice try.

    You are really losing your edge Schultzie.

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    What do you want to bet that a significant percentage of Americans (including myself and 45) learned how to spell "counsel" this week?

    If pressed a week ago, I'd have definitely asserted that there would have been a second "c" in there somewhere :)

  94. [94] 
    Paula wrote:

    [91] Goode: Yes. GOP will continue to obstruct as much as they can get away with for as long as they can get away with it. They will have to be overcome by a combination of citizen demands and outrage, continued reporting by real reporters, and Trumpie's helpful self-inflicted errors/disasters.

    Also Comey's personal outrage and the FBI's loyalty to him.

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    We may have to demand multiple special " insert title here" or select commitees to get the job done.

    Oh we will, we will. How many Benghazi!!! investigations were there? If the democrats get either house in 2018 it is payback time. Bigly!

  96. [96] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump’s repeated media missteps have frustrated even longtime supporters. “Every day he looks more and more like a complete moron,” said one senior administration official who also worked on Trump’s campaign. “I can’t see Trump resigning or even being impeached, but at this point I wish he’d grow a brain and be the man that he sold himself as on the campaign.”

    To be fair to Michale, I can understand why this person didn't want to use his or her name :)

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    Asked whether an administration staff change-up would ameliorate this latest crisis, a Republican source formerly involved with a pro-Trump political group told The Daily Beast, “yes, if it comes with a frontal lobotomy for Trump.”

    OK, this is from his "friends" and "supporters" - this isn't the Democrats speaking. Bloody hilarious!

  98. [98] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    M-89

    Really???? A right wing RAG that clearly and creatively edited out the curtsy moment by leaving out the fact Trump received an award, and presented the story in a clearly bigoted fashion that you love to accuse us of doing is your "proof" ?

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-american-mirror/

    Believing stuff from sites like that will rot your brain...

  99. [99] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    GT [91] Good find. Something to watch out for.

    [85] Neilm: On that point I think we will find no evidence of the sort that says "Things are bad in the press for 45, can you release a few more emails?"

    I was about to type 'they wouldn't be that stupid', then thought better of it. It's indisputable that Russia hacked the DNC, then released emails that damaged Hillary, and that by summer all that was well known to anyone following the news. Any backdoor contact between Russian spymasters and the Trump campaign after that point could be construed as 'collusion'.

    And it goes beyond oil deals. Influence peddling, money laundering, and violations of the Espionage Act are included in the scope of the investigation.

  100. [100] 
    neilm wrote:

    And it goes beyond oil deals. Influence peddling, money laundering, and violations of the Espionage Act are included in the scope of the investigation.

    I'm more worried about the scope than most people on this board are, but if Mueller digs into money laundering there are going to be a lot of questions for 45 about his property deals - remember after going bankrupt a few times no U.S. bank was going to lend him any money - so he had to go to less discerning sources.

    It's going to be an interesting summer.

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neilm [100] Happy 100! I'm more worried about the scope than most people on this board are

    As someone who fretted about Starr's abuse of the Special Prosecutor's office in the 90's, I share some concern about that too. Starr used his office to coerce and intimidate Lewinsky, and to delve into areas clearly outside his mandate(again, Lewinsky? What did she have to do with the Whitewater deal?).

    Michale seems to be betting that Mueller will go even farther afield than Starr, turning the Trump investigation into the Obama investigation, but even if he were as reckless as Starr, that's a bridge too far, by my reckoning.

    I guess this sort of bump-and-grind is just an unavoidable side effect of our adversarial political system. Can't live with an SP, can't live without 'em.

  102. [102] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale -

    OK, I'm only about a third of the way through the comments, but I had to stop because I was laughing so hard.

    Your demand for facts, oh, excuse me, FACTS, is amusing, at this point in time. You didn't used to be such a stickler, as I recall. Case in point: every single comment you made about Obama's birth certificate. You sure didn't care about FACTS back then, you were cheerfully willing to wallow in pure supposition -- that turned out not to be true.

    So, to recap, when scandals are swirling around Democrats, facts are not necessary. When swirling around Republicans, they are absolutely necessary, and nothing less will do.

    Have I got that right? Just askin'...

    -CW

  103. [103] 
    Paula wrote:

    [101] Balthasar:

    Michale seems to be betting that Mueller will go even farther afield than Starr, turning the Trump investigation into the Obama investigation, but even if he were as reckless as Starr, that's a bridge too far, by my reckoning.

    Michale doesn't isn't betting, he's hoping it. Given that Obama was clean as a whistle and HRC has already been investigated to death and Mueller has not previously shown himself to be the partisan-hack Starr was, I don't think we need fear he'll convert an investigation into Russia/DT into an Obama/HRC investigation.

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    Balthasar [101] - Sorry, I may have assumed that everybody was paying attention to all my viewpoints in detail ... taking notes and all that ;)

    When I said I was worried about scope, I was worried in the other direction, that Mueller would look into collaboration between 45's campaign (whether 45 knew or not) and then stop.

    I'm hoping that he strays wildly, and let me say this to Michale, if he does find wrong doing by Obama or Hillary, I hope he prosecutes to the utmost of our ability.

    I have no time for corrupt politicians of any color.

    (Program note: I'm safe in my indignation because there is no chance that Mueller is interested in anything Hillary or Obama did, and they didn't do anything anyway.)

  105. [105] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    What I find incredibly ironic in all of this is that Trump could probably have weathered the storm of the Comey firing if he had just kept his damn mouth (and Twitter thumbs) shut.

    Instead, Trump:

    * Gave the Lester Holt interview.
    * Hinted at the existence of "tapes".
    * Bragged to the Russians about firing a "nutjob".
    * Gave ever-more-conflicted reasons why at a presser.

    I mean, if he had just kept quiet, right about now the whole Comey firing thing would have faded into the woodwork. Now, we've got a special counsel looking into it.

    Trump's his own worst enemy.

    -CW

  106. [106] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mueller has not previously shown himself to be the partisan-hack Starr was

    Imagine, once upon a time Ken Starr was on GH Bush's short-list to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

    We got Souter instead. heh.

  107. [107] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CW: [105] if he had just kept quiet, right about now the whole Comey firing thing would have faded into the woodwork. Now, we've got a special counsel looking into it. Trump's his own worst enemy.

    You've got a point there. Maybe some subconscious self-sabotage going on?

  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    You've got a point there. Maybe some subconscious self-sabotage going on?

    There was a lot of whining about having a tougher job than any other President has had. Maybe he is setting himself up to resign by claiming that even he could not face the pressures of the most difficult term of the World's most difficult job.

    And that whoever comes next isn't going to have the same pressures from the unfair media, etc. whine, etc.

    Squares with the facts - even his insiders think he has become moronic.

    Maybe Michale is right and he is playing 12th dimensional chess to get those days when nobody cared if he went to Church and stopped him from playing golf 24 x 7.

  109. [109] 
    neilm wrote:

    You know - being a billionaire instead of everybody's bitch or pinata.

  110. [110] 
    neilm wrote:

    You have to remember that this is the first job 45 has every had.

    This is the first job where there were continuous and unrelenting obligations and responsibilities beyond wondering if anybody smelled your fart, or if you could have two scoops of ice cream.

    45 has never done a day's work in his life when he had a boss, who also had a boss, who told him/her what to do, and could fire him if s/he didn't.

    This is why he keeps telling himself that he can't be fired, or sued. He can get to pick the time to exit.

  111. [111] 
    neilm wrote:

    To get 45's focus, you have to make him think he could get jail time. Otherwise he is just going to play you.

  112. [112] 
    Paula wrote:

    [110] neilm:

    45 has never done a day's work in his life when he had a boss, who also had a boss, who told him/her what to do, and could fire him if s/he didn't.

    Yep. Bumpy's life has been one where he could make demands and pronouncements and expect others to carry them out. He has also always been able to pay his way out of trouble. He's now in a situation where people can say "no", AND where a "fine" ain't gonna cut it.

    He's just not equipped to deal with genuine accountability.

  113. [113] 
    neilm wrote:

    He's just not equipped to deal with genuine accountability.

    This could be the 45 exit parade tagline.

    Nice one Paula :)

  114. [114] 
    Paula wrote:

    [113] neilm: thanks!

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Charles Brown, Esq.
    3

    The most jaw-dropping part of the 'nut-job' story (that CW tragically MISSED because he was ostensibly 'too busy' writing 'the words'! Sad!) was 'Trump added "I am not under investigation".'

    I know, right, Charlie Brown!?! Trump and his ilk have been under investigation since June 2016, and he keeps whining about how this "Russia thing" was fabricated after he won the election. Of course, he and his various iterations of campaign managers/cronies know better, yet he lies about it over and over as if telling the lie multiple times is going to magically make it a fact.

    Oh, sure... all presidents lie, but it takes a special kind of stupid to listen to President Pathological and his constant barrage of propaganda and falsehoods and come to any other conclusion than he's a con artist and serial fabricator.

    We mustn't let Trump and his brand of bullshit become normalized; this level of delusion and cognitive dissonance is NOT normal.

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    4

    Did the latest leak happen just as Air Force One was taking off - in other words did somebody wait to leak this until the point where 45 was gone so he couldn't charge around the White House trying to find who leaked this?

    Yes, sir... coordinated in advance.

    I guess comparing the IC community to Nazis, referring to America's free press as "fake news," requesting that the FBI Director lock up journalists, and tweeting out various other assorted and ridiculous stupid shit turns out to have consequences.

    Who knew? :)

  117. [117] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    this level of delusion and cognitive dissonance is NOT normal.

    Oh yes it is, but you've been trained to ignore it, because even though it's a regular part of everyday life, and in fact is omnipresent, it's barely ever discussed or talked about unless it's also funny. It appears during every break on every television show that you watch, and sometimes, within the shows that you watch, and more and more online as well.

    It's called Advertising, and it's the largest collection of lies, half truths and flat out con jobs that mankind ever created. It tries to influence you by lying to you straight to your face, because that's the method that works best, and they've studied this since P.T. Barnum saw his first lollipop emerge from the womb.

    Trump 'sells' himself as if he were a product. It's the biggest! It's the best! There has never been better! It's the Greatest Show on Earth! The exclamation points just write themselves.

    Don't forget, a sizeable part of his business income is garnered by simply sticking his name on stuff, and then collecting the royalty. Nice racket. He's doing the same now, sticking his name on Ryan's healthcare bill, Ryan's tax plan, and Obama's economy, and calling it his own.

    Do they still have the Cleo's for advertising campaigns? He should be nominated.

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    14

    45 is not going to have an easy time with Mueller:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/18/james-comey-trump-special-prosecutor-robert-mueller-fbi-215154

    Yes, sir. Nice article. That's what I was meaning in my posts yesterday.

    Today, I'm hearing that White House counsel are frantically trying to find a way to disqualify Mueller. I guess this blows to hell all the theories about Trump knowing far in advance and pulling the strings behind the scenes and wanting this to happen and that the special counsel will be a loyal Party drone and go rogue and investigate Obama for "wire tapps" that never happened.

    The FBI has already testified there was no "wire tapp." Oh, sure. There were several FISA warrants issued starting in 2016 because contrary to Trump's pathological lying, there has been an ongoing investigation for almost a year now, grand juries have been convened and indictments under seal. The President is privy to the information so don't listen to his bullshit. It only gets worse for him at this point, and he's been fully notified.

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    18

    Doesn't anyone have ANY incontrovertible FACTS to support the accusations against President Trump??

    Yes. The Grand Juries do, and when the evidence is presented, the Orange Messiah will whimper like a victim and cry "fake news" and spin the facts as a victory for Trump. That's what con artists do.

  120. [120] 
    neilm wrote:

    Today, I'm hearing that White House counsel are frantically trying to find a way to disqualify Mueller.

    So the person running the investigation is important, we can all agree. A Mueller, or a Comey - you know, somebody who has a public history of integrity, is valuable.

    But the FBI must be full of high quality investigators with impeccable integrity. And these are the people who are doing 99%+ of the actual groundwork. Chopping off the head of the FBI isn't going to make the problem go away - we already know that - fire Comey , get Mueller. The FBI is a hydra - and not only will another head appear, but the resolve of the rest of the body increase.

    If I were 45 I'd stop making things worse with the FBI and the IC - but then, I'm not 45 :)

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    35

    Come with facts or just shut the hell up....

    If those are the new rules, it really is going to get awfully quiet in here.

    Without all the Fox News BS to regurgitate, what will there be to talk about? :)

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    47

    Nice column with great analogies. I would simply add "vampire" to the list. They either drain your blood and discard you or make you into a vampire. When Director Comey refused to be "made," he became disposable.

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    48

    This reminds of MY COUSIN VINNY..

    He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you.

    When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick.
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    An "ironclad" case that, once the REAL FACTS are looked at and examined closely, totally and completely falls apart..

    -----------------

    Oh, good. Now if you could just take that little nugget of yours and realize that it applies to President Pathological, you could actually become the beneficiary of one of your very own posts! :)

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    83

    Sgt. Schultz can't prove 45 didn't curtsy, but he's always demanding we prove other people "didn't" do things. Its the beauty of demanding people prove a negative -- not possible.

    Just like I can't prove Schultzie isn't a Russian stooge. I can't prove Schultzie isn't passing along rightwing propaganda for money. I can't prove Schultzie doesn't have secret meetings with Sean Hannity during which they swear blood fealty to the orange man and take turns licking each other's feet as proxies for the donald's horny appendages. I can't prove Schultzie doesn't harbor gay fantasies about DT. I can't prove Schultzie never danced naked with other white supremacists.

    OMG, Paula, I laughed so hard I cried!

    Hey, Paula, I can actually prove one of those, but I won't say which one. :)

  125. [125] 
    Paula wrote:

    [124] Kick: I'm glad you laughed!

    I think I know the one you could prove, and I've long suspected it!

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    Okay SNL. I'm tuning you in now, and I better get The Rock Obama!

    Just Saying. :)

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, one more thing, y'all:

    Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker magazine's White House and Washington, DC correspondent, has a profile of Sally Yates that will be published on Monday, May 22.

    Mandatory reading, people! :)

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    OK, I gave ya'all 12 hours to come up with ANY real tangible facts to support the Trump accusations..

    I was not totally shocked when I didn't see a SINGLE tangible fact..

    Like I said, this is EXACTLY like the time ya'all were on the TRUMP IS RACIST binge...

    I sat ya'all down and we went over the accusations one by one and lo and behold, there was not a SINGLE fact to support that Trump was a racist..

    This is exactly the same thing..

    All you people have is anonymous sources and people in the Leftist MSM saying, "Well, this is what we were told"...

    NO ONE on the record and NO FACTS to support ANY of it..

    Funny how that is... :D

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    Your demand for facts, oh, excuse me, FACTS, is amusing, at this point in time. You didn't used to be such a stickler, as I recall. Case in point: every single comment you made about Obama's birth certificate. You sure didn't care about FACTS back then, you were cheerfully willing to wallow in pure supposition -- that turned out not to be true.

    That's because Odumbo refused to GIVE us any facts..

    But you are correct.. I SHOULD have been all about the FACTS issue vis a vis President Trump from the very beginning.. I just got so caught up in the maelstrom....

    But, as I was reading everything you wrote and everything the Leftist MSM wrote it suddenly occurred to me..

    There is not a SINGLE tangible fact... excuse me.. FACT :D to support ANY of the Trump accusations..

    Not a SINGLE solitary fact.. It's ALL nothing but rumor, innuendo and out and out lying... It's TRUMP IS A RACIST all over again.. And we all know how well THAT turned out for ya'all, eh?? :D

    I am still open to discussing any of ya'all's facts, if ya'all can ever come up with any...

    Where's Joshua when ya need him, eh? :D

  130. [130] 
    michale wrote:

    If those are the new rules, it really is going to get awfully quiet in here.

    I know, right!!?? :D

    Imagine that we did ONE week where ya'all posted ONLY the FACTS, incontrovertible and PROVABLE facts.. er... FACTS about President Trump..

    No innuendos, no rumors, no anonymous sources, no tea-leave reading, no extrapolation, none of it..

    Just FACTS...

    Ya'all wouldn't have ANYTHING to post!!!!!! :D

    How hilarious is that!!??? :D

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/20/dershowitz_calls_special_counsel_mueller_good_news_for_trump_hes_going_to_find_no_crime.html

    Very good read...

    And a point of FACT (there's that word again) that ya'all have ignored time and time again...

    To be fair, Neil has touched on it a couple times and, to his credit, has bucked the WPG trend of screaming hysterically about the Russian Collusion bullshit...

    Kudos to Neil..

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    Hot Lips,

    Michale doesn't isn't betting, he's hoping it..

    Just as ya'all are "HOPING" that Director Mueller tears into ALL of Trumps dealings from the day Trump was born...

    We're both likely going to be disappointed.

    Since you have state FOR THE RECORD that Director Mueller is an honorable man, and I agree with that assessment, by the bi....

    Director Mueller will likely stay within his purview and investigate ONLY the Trump Russia collusion issue...

    And, as even Neil admits, that is a pure, unadulterated NOTHING-burger...

    So, we'll be left with the FACT that President Trump is exonerated and ya'all will still go on and on hysterically about President Trump...

    And so it goes and so it goes... :D

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    Looks like I called that right -- while writing and editing this, the story of how Trump called Comey a nutjob to the Russians in the Oval Office broke. Apologies for not including it.

    Is there any *FACTS* to support the accusation??

    No, there is not..

    Facts are god around here...

    Except when it comes to attacking those with an -R after their name, apparently... heh :D

  134. [134] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    Really???? A right wing RAG that clearly and creatively edited out the curtsy moment by leaving out the fact Trump received an award, and presented the story in a clearly bigoted fashion that you love to accuse us of doing is your "proof" ?

    If Left Wing rags are good enough for ya'all, then ya'all should have NO PROBLEM accepting Right Wing rags..

    IF ya'all weren't Party zealots, that is.. Where the ONLY thing that matters is the -D after a persons name.. :D

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    I am deeply concerned by what is happening here. It began when we apprehended a spy, a man who admitted his guilt and who will answer for his crime. But the hunt didn't end there. Another man, Mister Simon Tarses, was brought to trial and it was a trial, no matter what others choose to call it. A trial based on insinuation and innuendo. Nothing substantive offered against Mister Tarses, much less proven. Mister Tarses' grandfather is Romulan, and for that reason his career now stands in ruins. Have we become so fearful? Have we become so cowardly that we must extinguish a man because he carries the blood of a current enemy? Admiral, let us not condemn Simon Tarses, or anyone else, because of their bloodlines, or investigate others for their innocent associations. I implore you, do not continue with this proceeding. End it now.
    -Captain Jean Luc Picard, THE DRUMHEAD

    How apropos....

  136. [136] 
    michale wrote:

    by leaving out the fact Trump received an award,

    So, now it's a crime to receive an award???

    Funny how it wasn't for Odumbo...

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    On a totally different subject..

    Anyone watch the new Michael Weatherley series BULL???

    Had an interesting debate with my lovely wife last night regarding the episode about the Terrorist Attack and the Encrypted Database.. And we rarely, if ever, have debates of this nature...

    Anyone catch that episode???

  138. [138] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    If Left Wing rags are good enough for ya'all, then ya'all should have NO PROBLEM accepting Right Wing rags..

    IF ya'all weren't Party zealots, that is.. Where the ONLY thing that matters is the -D after a persons name.. :D

    And yea... I TOTALLY appreciate the irony here... :D

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    As I can surmise from the comments, ya'all are conceding that you DON'T have any facts to support ya'all's President Trump (I am NEVER going to get tired of typing that!! :D) accusations...

    The gist of ya'all's argument is that I don't have the right to question ya'all's total lack of facts..

    OK, that's a fair argument, a fair opinion...

    But it won't change the FACT that ya'all have absolutely NO FACTS to support ya'all's hysterical President Trump accusations..

    So say we all.. :D

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    Arizona man told congresswoman her days ‘were numbered’ for supporting Trump, FBI says

    In three separate voice messages in May, a Tuscon school district employee threatened to shoot Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) because he was angry with her votes in support of President Trump, according to the FBI.

    Authorities tracked the caller’s phone number to Steve Martan, 58, who was later arrested for allegedly threatening to assault and murder a U.S. official, interfering with McSally’s duties and retaliating against her, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Tucson.

    On May 2 and May 10, Martan is accused of calling McSally’s congressional office and leaving threatening, expletive-filled voice-mail messages.

    “Yeah this is for Martha McSally,” Martan allegedly said in the first recording, before saying he wanted to wring the congresswoman’s neck. “You need to get back where you came from and leave Arizona,” he added.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/16/ariz-man-told-congresswoman-her-days-were-numbered-for-supporting-trump-fbi-says/?utm_term=.a28ef6330a96

    Ahhh yes, the "tolerance" of the Left Wingery.. :eyeroll:

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    CA Dem Chair: ‘All Together Now: F*ck Donald Trump!’ as Crowd Holds Up Two Middle Fingers
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/ca-dem-chair-together-now-fck-donald-trump-crowd-holds-two-middle-fingers-video/

    Yea... *TRUMP* is the crass, foul-mouthed lowlife.. :^/

  142. [142] 
    michale wrote:

    Word is President Trump is crushing it with his speech in SA.... :D

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    After listening to President Trump's speech, I was left feeling that there were a number of very salient points made.

    One of the biggest problems, though, is that the grand partnership with Saudi Arabia may be the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East in that it doesn't appear to recognize the critical Sunni-Shi'a divide. Until that obstacle to peace is finally addressed by the region, there isn't much that the US can do to facilitate peace or eradicate terrorism.

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    After listening to President Trump's speech, I was left feeling that there were a number of very salient points made.

    That's what I heard as well...

    One of the biggest problems, though, is that the grand partnership with Saudi Arabia may be the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East in that it doesn't appear to recognize the critical Sunni-Shi'a divide. Until that obstacle to peace is finally addressed by the region, there isn't much that the US can do to facilitate peace or eradicate terrorism.

    "Those who fight must stop it themselves... Or it is never really stopped."
    -Spock, DAY OF THE DOVE

    There is no doubt that the US has an important role to play in bringing peace to the region..

    Unfortunately, with the current status of Islam (Christianity, circa 900 AD) the only peace that is possible is an imposed peace... WHich is not really peace at all, just a temporary cessation of war...

  145. [145] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    the only peace that is possible is an imposed peace...

    I disagree.

    "Imposing peace" is simply the easy way out and, as you rightly point out, not an effective answer.

    It is a much heavier lift to approach this problem as the multi-faceted challenge it is. Unfortunately, a lot of time has been lost since the seminal 9/11 attacks and much has been done over this period to actually set back the effort to address the challenge.

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    I think if the vast majority of the Left would stop with the hysterics and histrionics and actually LISTENED to President Trump, they would realize that they have a MUCH better partner in Trump than they would have with President Pence...

  147. [147] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    M-

    I'm so very touched....a multiple comment response, I am so not worthy.

    I would remind you however that I am not the one who decided to castigate others sources of "news" in such a fashion that would lead one to believe that your shit doesn't stink.

    Since you have resorted to your standard go to party zealot argument, thus indicating that you have no logical means to refute the basic underlying reason I called you out in the first place, we will all assume you concede that Trump curtsied, flounced, was a little cuck, just like Obama was condemned for on his visit.

    Thank the gods TRUMP is MAGA one curtsy at a time...

    Now if you want to talk news sources I will accept. Go here and select from the least biased or one of the center biased groups.

    Bet you can't do it...

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    It is a much heavier lift to approach this problem as the multi-faceted challenge it is. Unfortunately, a lot of time has been lost since the seminal 9/11 attacks and much has been done over this period to actually set back the effort to address the challenge.

    But the status of the Islam religion prevents that from happening..

    How do you explain civilized behavior to someone who is devout to a religion that allows such heinous behavior??

    I honestly believe that, until Islam 'grows up' the only possible peace is an imposed peace..

    Temporary as that may be, it's infinitely preferable to the alternative..

  149. [149] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    I'm so very touched....a multiple comment response, I am so not worthy.

    Of course you are!! :D

    I would remind you however that I am not the one who decided to castigate others sources of "news" in such a fashion that would lead one to believe that your shit doesn't stink.

    I calls em as I sees em... :D

    Since you have resorted to your standard go to party zealot argument, thus indicating that you have no logical means to refute the basic underlying reason I called you out in the first place,

    Ya'all have given me NOTHING to refute...

    I have BEGGED for facts and NONE have been forthcoming..

    Since I don't have any facts from ya'all, I amuse myself with other things. :D

    Now if you want to talk news sources I will accept. Go here and select from the least biased or one of the center biased groups.

    Going to the news source before we have any data is putting the cart before the horse..

    Give me an accusation and the corresponding facts to support....

    As long as they are REALLY and TRULY facts, I won't care their source... As long as it's truly factual, even HuffPoop or DailyKshit is fine...

    I doubt you'll FIND any facts there, but if you do, and they truly are facts, I'll accept it..

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    GT....

    Let's start with an easy one..

    Ya'all have accused President Trump of saying that former Director Comey was a "nut job"...

    What and where are the facts to support such an accusation...

  151. [151] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz [143] Until that obstacle to peace is finally addressed by the region, there isn't much that the US can do to facilitate peace or eradicate terrorism.

    No, but we can arm every side to the teeth, and count our profits while they continue their proxy wars. We can look the other way while SA supports terrorism and radical Islam. We can slow our support for alternative energy so that they can continue to keep that vise grip on our jewels well into the future, and Exxon in the driver's seat. That we can do.

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, Balthasar, your sarcasm is well placed and represents the real obstacle to peace and to the formulation of good policy.

    What can be done about that when the American people don't stand up and be heard on these issues, largely because they don't care or understand what is at stake.

    If the 9/11 attacks and the last global financial crisis didn't wake the people up, what will... dare I ask?

  153. [153] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me rephrase that last bit so that it isn't wrongly interpreted by anyone ...

    If the 9/11 attacks and, more importantly, the response to them, and the last global financial crisis didn't wake the people up, what will... dare I ask?

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes, Balthasar, your sarcasm is well placed and represents the real obstacle to peace and to the formulation of good policy.

    Especially in light of the fact that most, if not all of those issues were in place under the previous administration and Balthazar didn't seem to have a problem with any of it then...

    The biggest obstacle to the formation of good policy is partisanship and the desire to place the needs of the Party before the formation of good policy...

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Especially in light of the fact that most, if not all of those issues were in place under the previous administration ...

    Well, to be clear, the US relationship with the House of Saud goes back a good deal further than the previous administration.

    Besides, let's not get dragged down into yet another partisan gutter when it is far more productive to keep the discussion to what the US should be doing now.

  156. [156] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    M-

    Ya'all have accused President Trump of saying that former Director Comey was a "nut job"...

    DYFOR before attempting to impose one of your ridiculous arguments upon my world view. I have been steadfast in my opinion that a "special" is needed to get to bottom of the matter as the current state of our legislative branch is such that they are not up to the job.

    Please go back and find a comment from me that levels a baseless accusation against rump, or, a comment that calls outright for his impeachment.

    You won't find one.... While I have rather strong opinions on having a draft dodging person who is completely ineligible to hold a security clearance, who selected a person who is a paid foreign agent to be in charge of our national secrets, I have kept my powder dry on the scandal stuff because it is smoke at this point... a lot of fucking smoke....

    At the end of the day all I want is for the SP to be permitted to do their job UNBOUND and UNINTERFERED with to get to the bottom of the matter... at the end of the day their will either be something there or not, in either case the electorate deserves to know...

    So save your one size fits all arguments for those that actually deserve it.

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, to be clear, the US relationship with the House of Saud goes back a good deal further than the previous administration.

    Troo....

    Besides, let's not get dragged down into yet another partisan gutter when it is far more productive to keep the discussion to what the US should be doing now

    Unfortunately, given the partisan hysteria of the here and now, as evidenced by Balthazar's sarcasm, it would be impossible to discuss the matter w/o any sort of partisanship intruding and dragging the productivity of the discussion down...

    Even regardless of partisanship, I simply cannot see a solution that is mutually agreeable to all parties.. We're talking about hatred that has been festering and boiling for, literally, thousands of years...

    Find a lasting mutually agreed peace under those conditions is beyond the scope of mere mortals...

  158. [158] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I hate spell checkers on the phone.... Coding the comments on a mobile sucks.

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    Please go back and find a comment from me that levels a baseless accusation against rump, or, a comment that calls outright for his impeachment.

    There are a plethora of baseless accusations against Trump in this commentary alone..

    Silence gives assent..

    So save your one size fits all arguments for those that actually deserve it.

    Touched a nerve, did I? :D

    It's funny how so much trash is spoken about President Trump but NO ONE ever says a thing.. :D

    Funny... :D

  160. [160] 
    michale wrote:

    I hate spell checkers on the phone.... Coding the comments on a mobile sucks.

    I got the gist... :D

    Regardless, Directer Mueller is being tasked to investigate the collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russian government..

    Since Mueller is such an HONORABLE man, he is unlikely to exceed that purview AND, more importantly, unlikely to leak his activities to appease the hysterical Left Wingery...

    So, while you are HOPING Mueller will bring down Trump, I think you are going to be disappointed..

  161. [161] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    141

    CA Dem Chair: ‘All Together Now: F*ck Donald Trump!’ as Crowd Holds Up Two Middle Fingers

    "All together now"!? Oh, give me a break. That headline doesn't exactly match the video. A few people in the crowd shot the finger, and this proves what?

    Yea... *TRUMP* is the crass, foul-mouthed lowlife.. :^/

    Yes, Trump is... and I can be too -- the hazards of spending a lifetime in service -- and so can you.

    Question: So how does a few people in a crowd shooting the finger change the fact that Trump is a crass, foul-mouthed lowlife and an admitted predator who sexually assaults women -- after a few Tic Tacs, of course?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xej2hvJdxw

    Answer: Your exercise in whataboutism changes nothing about Trump. If you'd like to see an angry crowd that actually fits your headline of "All Together Now," check out footage from a Trump rally or the Republican National Convention wherein the spy leads a chant of "lock her up" and states: "If I did a tenth of what she did, I'd be in jail today."

    He said that with a straight face. Projection... it can be so instructive. :)

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    153

    If the 9/11 attacks and, more importantly, the response to them, and the last global financial crisis didn't wake the people up, what will... dare I ask?

    Dang but that is a great question. If you find out the answer, you are required to let us know.

    Please. :)

  163. [163] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    It was a good speech. Totally gaffe-free, consistent, and delivering an overarching if unobtainable vision of what could attain from reversing the tragedy of the commons and eradicating the sources of terrorism.

    A realpolitik view was enunciated as well, that the US will support shared strategic interest wherever and with whomever it is beneficial. That view lives next door to basic wire frames of seeing this century's wars as being waged as, or in support of, broad resource conflicts. That isn't held only by abstract policy thinkers; it's also a dominant part of, e.g., the Navy's reference frame.

    There was one moment of ironic humor, and it wasn't in the speech. It was as the President was speaking of a post-terrorist world's "wonders of science, art, medicine, and commerce." As this vision was being delivered, the US Secretary of Commerce was asleep. Forgivable; Wilber's not a young man, his dance card was probably over-full, and eastbound jet lag can be a somabitch. Probably an icon, though, of the impact the speech will have domestically.

    The full speech is here; https://www.c-span.org/video/?428828-1/president-addresses-arabislamicamerican-summit-riyadh

    The above quote, and view of the Trump entourage, is around 52:25 on that tape.

  164. [164] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    At [150], michale, you write: Ya'all have accused President Trump of saying that former Director Comey was a "nut job"...What and where are the facts to support such an accusation...

    I don't think anyone is really saying that. I think they are saying that multiple leaks of the official WH transcript of a state meeting are sourcing the reporting of that. Their operative challenge, back to you, might then be "Where is the official denial of that report?"

    Then, your next move (or the move I would make, at least): "The widely reported Comey 'request for resources to expand the investigation' now stands refuted by all relevant senion DOJ officials. This, in spite of wide confirmation sourcing of five MSM outlets and no denials, at the time of the leaks. 'No offical denial' doesn't necessarily mean a damn thing with a leak."

    So this might not be true. But given the mood among the principals evidenced in those Tass photos, and the President's lifelong propensity for pecker checking. my money's on the transcript.

  165. [165] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Silence gives assent..

    Scraping the bottom of the ol' septic tank I see...
    Touched a nerve, did I?

    Not really... kind of like the flight physicals I used to have every year, I hate it when someone tries to jam a finger up my ass...

    Try a more intellectually challenging argument.

    Regardless, Directer Mueller is being tasked to investigate the collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russian government..

    I guess that is what your bubble is telling you.... according to DOJ order 3915-2017 Mueller is charged with investigating:
    (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
    associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
    (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
    (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

    Last time I checked that is a whole lot more than just good ole "collusion" and well Flynn is a cooked goose.

    Since Mueller is such an HONORABLE man, he is unlikely to exceed that purview AND, more importantly, unlikely to leak his activities to appease the hysterical Left Wingery...

    Sarcasm, noted... Mueller is an honorable man, just as Comey was, did I like how Comey handled the Clinton late election thing when compared to the Trump is pushing a dirty DNI appointment thing? NO. Does it diminish the fact that at the end of the day Comey is an honorable person who for better or for worse marched to the beat of his own drum? NO.

    Using your silence gives some sort of whataboutery argument, you clearly support Trump canning Comey for doing his job... The question to answer now is will you keep your histrionics to a minimum until the deed is done?

    So, while you are HOPING Mueller will bring down Trump, I think you are going to be disappointed..

    AGAIN, quit trying to shove your fingers in my bung! I will state as I have all through this process I simply want the truth to come out.

    It is beyond dispute that pretty much rump could have solved a majority of these problems by being as transparent as Clinton was ... which is not saying much...

    Oh, and let's not forget NOT appointing a foreign agent to be the keeper of our national secrets.

    If at the end of the day it is simply proven that Trump is going to be a shitty president who was a simpleton...so be it, at least we will know he was just an idiot. I can at least live with that .... as proven by someone who is well respected and not part of the current political system.

    The question is can you?

  166. [166] 
    Paula wrote:

    This is good: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/financial-crimes-and-why-trump-is-right-to-worry

    But even if you take the Russia/former Soviet Union connection with its geopolitical dynamics out of the equation, you simply can’t read over these deals and not see that Trump and his crew just play way out on the outer fringe of legality at best. At best. People who have done or subsequently did time in the US or other countries repeatedly appear in the picture. So do people from organized crime. A lot….

    ...But even with a basic investigative reporting background, you can’t work through even part of Trump’s business history without finding numerous ventures that look like they would not survive first contact with real prosecutorial scrutiny. A key element, perhaps the key element, of the counter-intelligence probe is examining the financial ties between Trump, members of his entourage and people from the Russian business and intelligence worlds. So a close examination of those ventures isn’t some fishing expedition. It’s at the heart of the investigation. A close look at what is available in public records, court filings and news reporting makes me think that that kind of scrutiny would not end well for any of the people involved.

    He mentions in the post Trump's charitable org. David Walmen at DailyKOS did a ton of reporting about that pre-election. Trump has, several times, taken donated money and bought things for himself with it. He saw his Charitable Org as just another way to flow money to himself -- people would donate thinking it was going to be used for some non-profit purpose and he'd just spend it. Or he would fund-raise for some cause, get money from people, and never give it to the cause.

    That's pretty sleezy behavior -- who does that? And if he'll do that, what else is he doing?

    We may be finding out soon.

  167. [167] 
    michale wrote:

    LB,

    At [150], michale, you write: Ya'all have accused President Trump of saying that former Director Comey was a "nut job"...What and where are the facts to support such an accusation...

    I don't think anyone is really saying that.

    I do.. Read comment #1 and comment #105..

    I think they are saying that multiple leaks of the official WH transcript of a state meeting are sourcing the reporting of that.

    They are treating those leaks as fact...

    THAT's my beef...

    So this might not be true. But given the mood among the principals evidenced in those Tass photos, and the President's lifelong propensity for pecker checking. my money's on the transcript.

    Which "transcript" are you referring to?

    No one here has provided any official transcript to back up their claims.. They have all been "Oh, WaPoop says it so it MUST be true!!" type crap..

    If they actually HAD an official transcript that they could point to, THAT would be one of those pesky facts I have been begging for...

  168. [168] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    Scraping the bottom of the ol' septic tank I see...

    Just stating an accepted fact..

    Using your silence gives some sort of whataboutery argument, you clearly support Trump canning Comey for doing his job...

    If I HAD been silent about Trump canning Comey, you would have a logical and rational argument.

    But, as even JL pointed out, I HADN'T been silent, so you don't have a logical or rational argument..

    I will state as I have all through this process I simply want the truth to come out.

    Just like you just wanted the "truth" to come out with the NOT-45 email server investigation?? :D

    Please don't insult my intelligence.. You want Trump crucified...

    I can at least live with that .... as proven by someone who is well respected and not part of the current political system.

    Like ya'all have "lived with it" with NOT-45??? :D

    So, you are saying for the record that you will accept Director Mueller's exoneration of President Trump without a single word of dissent??

    Is that what you are HONESTLY trying to say?? :D

  169. [169] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    Try a more intellectually challenging argument.

    Apparently, it's intellectually challenging enough because you always keep coming back for more.. :D

  170. [170] 
    michale wrote:

    “A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive them out. Drive them of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land. And drive them out of this earth...That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires...It means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians….Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear...And political leaders must speak out to affirm the same idea: heroes don’t kill innocents. They save them.”
    -President Trump..

    If only Obama had made that speech...

  171. [171] 
    michale wrote:

    Two days and not a SINGLE fact to support ANY of ya'all's President Trump accusations..

    Shocking... :^/

    Aside to GT.. Now THAT is sarcasm... :D

  172. [172] 
    michale wrote:

    These aggrieved progressives also cannot understand how principled, religious conservatives can support Donald Trump on personal grounds. He is Darth Vader, right? How can good people support the dark lord? It is because he is willing to fight the progressive ascendancy, and can do so effectively that conservatives support him. Those people must be hypocrites.

    Darth Vader is the wrong Star Wars analogy. Donald Trump is Han Solo, not Darth Vader. Han Solo was a scoundrel. He was a cutthroat capitalist, looking only to make money. He was willing to disobey Imperial law, he associated with gangsters and smuggled goods. Han Solo was good at looking after himself. He didn’t believe in the Force, light or dark. But circumstances changed his mission. He became a champion for good, a revolutionary vital to overthrowing the evil order he had never given much thought about before.

    Trump’s agenda is the restoration of founding values. True conservatives are willing to tolerate and support a foul-mouthed, twice-divorced man of questionable character and personal values because of what he has come to represent, not for what he permitted or engaged in in the past.

    The progressive battle against him has become a battle to the death over questioning progressivism itself. If they defeat Trump, no one will dare question the truth of progressivism again. Identity politics will be here to stay, the cult of victimhood our nationally established religion. The devaluation of private property and personal liberty in the name of equality will be back with a vengeance.

    A victory of the Trump agenda will mean a real debate about what American liberty means once again. It may not result in a wholesale return to the values of the founders, but it is the last, best chance for it to happen. Help us Donald Trump, you’re our only hope.
    http://amgreatness.com/2017/05/18/new-hope-trump-han-solo-not-darth-vader/

    :D

  173. [173] 
    michale wrote:

    Please go back and find a comment from me that levels a baseless accusation against rump, or, a comment that calls outright for his impeachment.

    Fair enough..

    Let's just get it out in the open.

    Do you believe that President Trump call Director Comey a 'nut job'...

    It's a simple yes or no question..

    I bet 10,000 quatloos you can't answer it as such.. :D

  174. [174] 
    michale wrote:

    check out footage from a Trump rally or the Republican National Convention wherein the spy leads a chant of "lock her up"

    You see that is your problem.

    You equate "lock her up", a perfectly acceptable and understandable sentiment (given NOT-45s crimes) with foul mouthed words and actions of the Left Wingery...

    No wonder your Party is so frak'ed up and has been utterly devastated the last 6 years..

    Real patriotic Americans are sick and tired of Left Wingery bigotry and intolerance...

  175. [175] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    139

    As I can surmise from the comments, ya'all are conceding that you DON'T have any facts to support ya'all's President Trump (I am NEVER going to get tired of typing that!! :D) accusations...

    Facts have been posted; you made the choice to ignore them. You're also conceding your dearth of ability to examine evidence and reach an intelligent conclusion. I have said this before, but it bears repeating in answer to your post: I could rub your nose in shit, and you'd insist you couldn't smell it. *LOL*

    Here, let me help those intellectually challenged/gullible worshipers of the Orange Messiah who are so invested in the Big Con that they choose to ignore what is publicly available and insist/request having their noses rubbed in it.

    REGARDING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
    THE FIRING OF DIRECTOR COMEY

    **Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

    The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?
    5:46 PM - 8 May 2017

    ** TRUMP: “[Rosenstein] made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’” -- May 11, 2017 during interview with Lester Holt

    -------------------------

    Around the same time that Trump met with Sessions and Rosenstein and ordered them to draft their recommendations to fire Comey, Trump tweeted his thinking. The decision to fire Comey was already made by Trump, and he explains why in his tweet of the same day and in his interview with Lester Holt. Trump wanted an end to the investigation... believe him.

    The Trump campaign has been under investigation for almost a year regarding Russia's interference in United States elections even before the election outcome, and Trump knows this yet lies about it anyway.

    -------------------------

    SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: “We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity,” Sanders said in regard to the FBI's Trump/Russia investigation, “and we think that we’ve actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen.” -- March 11, 2017

    -------------------------

    REGARDING TRUMP'S REVEALING
    CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO RUSSIA

    Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump

    As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining....
    6:03 AM - 16 May 2017

    Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump

    ...to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
    6:13 AM - 16 May 2017

    -------------------------

    H. R. MCMASTER: "But the gist of the conversation was that the president feels as if he is hamstrung in his ability to work with Russia to find areas of cooperation because this has been obviously so much in the news. And that was the intention of that portion of that conversation."

    REX TILLERSON: "The president was simply saying to the Russians, these issues at home are not going to get in the way of my effort and the effort of my government to see if we can find a way to move this relationship forward."

    -------------------------

    Information regarding content of the meeting with the Russians was tweeted by Trump. Additionally, a transcript of the meeting exists that has been circulated among White House staff which was leaked to multiple journalists and confirmed by multiple sources within the White House.

    * Trump's leaking of classified information.

    * Trump's disparaging words regarding Director Comey and why he was terminated... "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

    Multiple sources in the White House decry the leaking of the information. McMaster and Tillerson appear on the Sunday shows on 05/21 in order to clarify what was said. Additionally, Sean Spicer does not deny the reports, saying: “This is clearly a pattern of people releasing sensitive information to further what appears to be someone’s agenda. The idea that there is no concern, or seemingly no concern, over something like this being put out in the open, I think is frankly concerning, and it should be to every American.”

    *********************

    Now, there's plenty more where that came from, but not all of it is public. However, DYOFR and you can actually find more evidence that is in the public realm... much more evidence regarding the subject of the group's "Trump accusations" during the last few weeks than I've seen you post regarding accusations against Clinton or Obama.

    Why is it that the right-wing gullible masses believe Donald Trump's made up birther nonsense without question with absolutely no proof whatsoever while questioning accounts of White House meetings that are being leaked by people in the room and which even Trump himself is clarifying in tweets and on the nightly news via questioning?

    Nose... meet shit... the stench is unmistakable... so you got to ask yourself why is it that you can't smell it?

  176. [176] 
    neilm wrote:

    Paula [166]

    Good article. It says what I've been trying to say. If the investigation strays there not 45's business deals, 45 is in a lot of trouble.

    But remember Benghazi!!!, if Mueller won't go there, you know the Democrats will if they get either house in 2018.

  177. [177] 
    neilm wrote:

    strays there not -> strays into

  178. [178] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    174

    You equate "lock her up", a perfectly acceptable and understandable sentiment (given NOT-45s crimes) with foul mouthed words and actions of the Left Wingery...

    Now, now... Where is your proof of any crimes? Give me a name, any name, and I can get you a list of their crimes along with those of their entire family too. HRC has no crimes.

    Besides, your reading comprehension really is a problem. I said the headline on your post didn't exactly match the video; it's not remotely an entire crowd as the headline suggests. It's a few people. The crowd that matches your headline was at the RNC. The guy that was leading the "lock her up" chant has broken multiple laws and is asking for an immunity deal. Poor guy... poor spy... Karma is such an ironic witch. :)

    No wonder your Party is so frak'ed up and has been utterly devastated the last 6 years..

    I don't have a Party. Ignoring that fact and typing your lies over and over doesn't magically turn them into facts, but thanks for proving over and over again that FACTS are something you only demand of others. Your lies and double standard are duly noted.

    Speaking of Party, it will be a hoot to see your Right Wingery Party land in jail for their crimes. Violation of multiple federal laws can come back and really bite you in the Rump.

    Real patriotic Americans are sick and tired of Left Wingery bigotry and intolerance...

    So thanks for letting us know! Since you talk about "Left Wingery bigotry and intolerance" pretty much every day, and it's basically all you do talk about over and over and over, you can't possibly be a real patriotic American because there's ample evidence in post after post after post... day after day... 24/7/365 that you're not remotely tired of it. :)

  179. [179] 
    michale wrote:

    Facts have been posted; you made the choice to ignore them.

    Bullshit...

    Absolutely NO relevant facts vis a vis the Trump/Comey/nutjob accusation has been posted.

    You are lying..

    As far as the subsequent spewage, I already proved that to be bullshit when Balthasar brought it up...

    NONE of it proves ANYTHING that you are accusing President Trump of.. Point to a single statement that proves President Trump obstructed anything..

    You can't because no such statement exists..

    Once again, you have NO facts.. Only mis-interpretation, innuendo and hysteria, brought on by extreme bigotry..

    Now, there's plenty more where that came from,

    Yea.. That's what ya'all keep saying, but NO ONE ever points to this "plenty more"...

    Funny how that is.. :D

    No facts whatsoever.. It's as factual today as the first day I brought it up...

  180. [180] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Good article. It says what I've been trying to say. If the investigation strays there not 45's business deals, 45 is in a lot of trouble.

    But, as ya'all point out, Mueller is an "honorable" man.. He won't go beyond his purview of the Trump/Russia connection..

    And when he DOESN'T go beyond that purview, President Trump will be exonerated and it will be the Democrat Party who is in a lot of trouble.. :D

    But remember Benghazi!!!, if Mueller won't go there, you know the Democrats will if they get either house in 2018.

    Yea, and a lot of things would have happened if NOT-45 hadn't totally scrooed herself during the campaign..

    IF is a pretty big word, as I am sure you will concede...

    But it's interesting.. Ya'all have gone all hysterical about how bad the Benghazi investigations were for this country etc etc...

    Yet, ya'all are advocating the EXACT SAME THING if Democrats can do it to Republicans..

    So, you don't seem to have ANY problem with the CONCEPT of Benghazi-style hearings.. You just don't like it when Republicans do it to Democrats.. But yer perfectly OK with Democrats doing it to Republicans..

    I dunno.. isn't that, oh.. say.. just a tad hypocritical?? :D

    "Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same goals.."
    -Yarnek/General George Washington, STAR TREK

    :D

  181. [181] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    179

    Bullshit...

    Absolutely NO relevant facts vis a vis the Trump/Comey/nutjob accusation has been posted.

    You are lying..

    Where did I say anything about the "nutjob" quote? I quoted your post where you're talking about the "Trump accusations" and nowhere do you mention the "nutjob" quote. How is "lying" to answer your post?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/19/ftp437/#comment-100547

    As far as the subsequent spewage, I already proved that to be bullshit when Balthasar brought it up...

    NONE of it proves ANYTHING that you are accusing President Trump of.. Point to a single statement that proves President Trump obstructed anything..

    Oh, I see the problem. You're ignorant because you're ignoring tweets, the spoken word, and the written word.

    Once again, you have NO facts.. Only mis-interpretation, innuendo and hysteria, brought on by extreme bigotry..

    You can't possibly be a patriotic American because you love "bigotry." It's all you ever talk about because you've got little else to offer. Your dearth of intellect is duly noted on a daily basis. :)

    Please keep posting fantasy articles about Donald Trump being Han Solo while you're busy telling everyone else they have no facts. That'll show us! :D *LOL*

    When a lightsaber pierces your heart and you fall from a bridge to the bottomless chasm of an exploding planet, the chances of your survival are nil… Rest in peace Han Solo.

  182. [182] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, I see the problem. You're ignorant because you're ignoring tweets, the spoken word, and the written word.

    No, it's you who is ignorant because you are trying to make Trump say something he didn't say..

    NONE of the quotes you posted (which Balthazar already posted) prove obstruction..

    It's only your twisting of the President's words that make your case..

    Get rid of all the felgercarb and show me a SINGLE statement where President Trump said what you make him out to say.

    You can't because no such statement exists..

    You have no relevant facts that prove ANYTHING....

    Where did I say anything about the "nutjob" quote?

    OK, so we agree.. President Trump did not call the FBI Director a nutjob..

    At least we can agree on that..

    You can't possibly be a patriotic American because you love "bigotry." It's all you ever talk about because you've got little else to offer. Your dearth of intellect is duly noted on a daily basis. :)

    And your lame dodge of the facts is also duly noted on a daily basis.. :D

  183. [183] 
    michale wrote:

    President Trump is proving to be quite the statesman...

    I bet that just pisses ya'all off to no end.. :D

  184. [184] 
    michale wrote:

    Since ya'all like ANONYMOUS sources.. (and, apparently, ONLY anonymous sources...) I imagine ya'all will be all over this, eh?? :D

    I know for certain that the Seth Rich case has scared the shit out of certain high ranking current and former Democratic Party officials.

    This is the reason why they have backed away from impeachment talk. They know the smoking gun is out there, and they’re terrified you will find it, because when you do it will bring the entire DNC, along with a couple of very big name politicians.

    It appears that certain DNC thugs were not thorough enough when it came time to cover their tracks. Podesta saying he wanted to “make an example of the leaker” is a huge smoking gun.

    The behavior is near open panic. To even mention this name in D.C. Circles [sic] will bring you under automatic scrutiny. To even admit that you have knowledge of this story puts you in immediate danger.

    If there was no smoke there would be no fire. I have never, in my 20 years of working in D.C. Seen [sic] such a panicked reaction from anyone.

    I have strong reason to believe that the smoking gun in this case is out o [sic] the hands of the conspirators, and will be discovered by anon. I know for certain that Podesta is deeply concerned. He’s been receiving anonymous calls and emails from people saying they know the truth. Same with Hillary.

    Since ANONYMOUS SOURCES are taken as gospel around these here part, ya'all will accept this as perfectly factual, right?? :D

    Oh, wait.. That's right..

    Ya'all ONLY support anonymous sources that further ya'all's agenda...

    Hypocrisy at it's finest... :D

  185. [185] 
    michale wrote:

    Even if it IS true that President Trump fired Comey because of the Russia Collusion probe... there are no facts to support it, but let's just say it's true....

    So what???

    Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knows that THAT case is totally bupkis.. Vaporware.. A really REALLY big nothing burger...

    Let me put that action in a plausible, nay even likely, context..

    "I fired Comey because of the Russia Collusion case, because pursuing it was a waste of time and money"
    -President Trump

    What's the big deal???

    To put it in a context that ya'all can readily understand... It was be as if Eric Holder was investigating Odumbo's Birth Certificate saga and Odumbo fired Holder because of it..

    What would be the big deal in THAT scenario?? Not a damn thing.. It would be proper and even expected..

    But ya'all simply CAN'T see this logic because ya'all (NEN) are blinded by Party bigotry...

  186. [186] 
    michale wrote:

    To sum up..

    Ya'all have absolutely NO relevant facts that prove President Trump committed any criminal/impeachable offense..

    Why can't ya'all just admit it...???

  187. [187] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    Silence gives assent..

    Scraping the bottom of the ol' septic tank I see...

    I am just going by the standards that ya'all set..

    Ya'all have gone on record as stating that the GOP was for this or that because they didn't oppose it or didn't speak out against it..

    So, if the SILENCE GIVES ASSENT standard bothers you, you only need to look in a PARTY mirror.. :D

  188. [188] 
    michale wrote:

    Getting hoisted by yer own Picard is a real bitch, ain't it?? :D

  189. [189] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    182

    No, it's you who is ignorant because you are trying to make Trump say something he didn't say..

    Incorrect. Everything I posted with his name next to it is actually something he said or tweeted. They use other people's words to prove obstruction too. He wanted the investigation to end. He said so on multiple occasions and so did his spokesperson.

    NONE of the quotes you posted (which Balthazar already posted) prove obstruction..

    Incorrect... twice:
    (1) Balthazar did not already post those quotes. He posted a link. The link doesn't contain all the quotes and tweets I posted.
    (2) Some of those quotes I posted do prove obstruction and are evidence. It is up to a good lawyer to present the case using those quotes along with other evidence, Comey's testimony, etc. Those are proof. Are they enough proof to get a conviction? Not your call. They wouldn't be presented alone; they'd be presented along with other facts and testimony, but they are proof of obstruction whether it fits your agenda or not.

    It's only your twisting of the President's words that make your case..

    Incorrect. Their words make a good case. Their words along with other evidence make an even better case... again, not your call. I suspect the FBI and/or special counsel will have so much other evidence of money laundering/RICO that the obstruction issue will be superfluous considering the preponderance evidence of the entire case.

    You have no relevant facts that prove ANYTHING....

    Incorrect. I have relevant facts that prove intent. Obviously.

    OK, so we agree.. President Trump did not call the FBI Director a nutjob..

    I made no statement regarding whether or not he said that; I just said your post that I quoted didn't limit the discussion to that term (like you were insinuating that it did). It does sound like something he'd say, though. The White House is not denying it. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a tape of it. These are the kinds of things that a good prosecutor will use to bury you. A deposition of Donald Trump simply asking him if he used that term, and he would respond "I don't recall." I believe we've had this discussion before. It's one of his favorite things to say in deposition. :)

    And your lame dodge of the facts is also duly noted on a daily basis.. :D

    That projection is a big thing of yours too. :)

  190. [190] 
    michale wrote:

    President Trump is continuing to defy his detractors at home by wooing more world leaders in the Middle East.

    During a Sunday meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Sisi told the American president that he is “capable of doing the impossible.”
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/praise-middle-east-egyptian-president-says-trump-capable-impossible/

    Oh snap!!! That's just GOTTA hurt, eh!? :D

  191. [191] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Here's one for you..

    Israeli ministers have approved measures aimed at improving the Palestinian economy and facilitating crossings, rare moves said to be at Donald Trump's request hours ahead of the US president's arrival.

    An Israeli official told AFP on condition of anonymity that ministers were responding to a Trump request to present him with "confidence-building measures" ahead of his talks with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas on Tuesday.

    In a statement, Trump's administration welcomed the moves, saying he "has been encouraging both sides to take steps that improve the environment for peace making."
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-rare-overture-palestinians-trump-request-072019761.html

    Again, I don't believe peace is possible under the current circumstances...

    But I have no doubt that the current administration is in a MUCH better position to make it happen than the last administration was...

  192. [192] 
    michale wrote:

    Incorrect. Everything I posted with his name next to it is actually something he said or tweeted. They use other people's words to prove obstruction too.

    Nothing you have quoted proves obstruction...

    There are no relevant facts to support obstruction..

    He wanted the investigation to end. He said so on multiple occasions and so did his spokesperson.

    Of COURSE he wanted it to end. It was a waste of time, money and resources..

    NOT-45 wanted the email server investigation to end..

    Democrats wanted the Benghazi investigations to end..

    Simply wanting something to end doesn't prove diddley squat...

    Incorrect. I have relevant facts that prove intent. Obviously.

    No, you don't... To prove intent, you have to be inside the President's head..

    You have NOTHING that proves intent..

    You have mis-interpretations, innuendo and bigotry that is in your mind and the mind of every other Left Wing bigot..

    But you have nothing that proves intent..

    This is fact...

  193. [193] 
    michale wrote:

    Some of those quotes I posted do prove obstruction and are evidence.

    Fine.. Post the quotes that "prove" obstruction...

    Just the quotes.. None of your other hysterical BS.. Just the quotes..

    I dare ya.. :D

    I made no statement regarding whether or not he said that

    OK, so we agree that there are no facts to support the accusation that President Trump called Director Comey a nut job...

  194. [194] 
    michale wrote:

    If there was anything that "proves" intent to obstruct, the Hysterical Democrat Party would be clamoring and screaming for impeachment..

    They are not because there is no basis for it..

    Well, Maxine Waters is screaming, but she is a loony toon of the highest order...

  195. [195] 
    TheStig wrote:

    A link to the State Dept. website about the US - Saudi arms deal:

    https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/05/270999.htm

    THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) is the big ticket cheese on the shopping list.

    As I see it, the Saudi's get a counter to Iranian ballistic missile attack in exchange for dialing back their funding to ISIL and similar militant Islamic hobbies (nudge nudge, wink wink).

    Israel can live with this.

    American defense contractors rejoice.

    Trump gets the best Cracker Jack prize ever!!!!! Made him weak in the knees it did.

    T. Rex finger prints all over this!

  196. [196] 
    michale wrote:

    It does sound like something he'd say, though. The White House is not denying it. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a tape of it.

    In other words, you believe it because you WANT to believe it, not because of any relevant facts to support the belief..

    OK, I accept that...

  197. [197] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    184

    You're seriously using a Sean Hannity conspiracy theory as a comparison to actual quotes we've posted?

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-seth-rich-slaying-conspiracy-20170520-story.html

    -------------------------

    The Fox reports, which gained traction on social media, said an FBI forensics examination showed that Rich transferred 44,053 DNC emails and 17,761 attachments to a now-deceased WikiLeaks director.

    The family has rejected this story, and demanded a retraction from Fox. Wheeler has since recanted parts of the story, saying he was misquoted and had no direct knowledge of the identity of the federal investigator or the investigator's findings.

    In the letter obtained by The Washington Post, an attorney for the Rich family warned Wheeler to immediately "cease and desist" from making any statements about Rich, the murder and the investigation.

    Anyone who continues to push this fake news story after it was so thoroughly debunked is proving to the world they have a transparent political agenda or are a sociopath.
    — Brad Bauman, Rich family spokesman

    Fox News personality Sean Hannity tweeted and ran segments about the murder and Wheeler's claims, further fueling the conspiracy theories.

    -------------------------

    So according to Rich's family this means you and Sean Hannity are sociopaths. :)

  198. [198] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    185

    To put it in a context that ya'all can readily understand... It was be as if Eric Holder was investigating Odumbo's Birth Certificate saga and Odumbo fired Holder because of it..

    No, it wouldn't, but the fact you think this is a valid comparison is very instructive and quite revealing.

    Being born is not a crime. :)

  199. [199] 
    michale wrote:

    Does it diminish the fact that at the end of the day Comey is an honorable person who for better or for worse marched to the beat of his own drum? NO.

    Funny how all these Weigantians are coming out of the woodwork to profess undying devotion to Director Comey **AFTER** President Trump fired him..

    Where were you et al when myself, Liz and JL were defending Comey against the pitiful attacks BEFORE President Trump fired Comey??

    No where to be found..

    So please.. Spare me your "Oh my gods, Comey is such an honorable man!!" theatrics in response to the President firing Comey..

    It's total BS...

  200. [200] 
    michale wrote:

    No quotes that "proves" President Trump's obstruction??

    Why am I not surprised... :D

    No, it wouldn't, but the fact you think this is a valid comparison is very instructive and quite revealing.

    Nice dodge AND projection... :D

  201. [201] 
    michale wrote:

    So according to Rich's family this means you and Sean Hannity are sociopaths. :)

    Did I "push" the story??

    No, I did not.. I simply pointed out the FACT that ya'all just LOVE "anonymous sources" when the support your bigotry..

    This is a statement of fact, not the pushing of any conspiracy theory...

  202. [202] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    192

    No, you don't... To prove intent, you have to be inside the President's head..

    With that statement, you've proven your lack of intellect. This is why Trump loves you and your uneducated ilk so much. They don't dissect people's brains to determine intent. They use written and oral statements and other testimony. I already said that this evidence would be added with other evidence in order to present a case. It wouldn't be all the evidence/proof, but it still constitutes evidence/proof.

    You have NOTHING that proves intent..

    You have mis-interpretations, innuendo and bigotry that is in your mind and the mind of every other Left Wing bigot..

    You have an empty mind like the empty mind of every other Right Wing uneducated Party bigot/zealot/slave. With no brain inside your heads, there is simply no mental capacity to recognize the concept of "evidence."

    But you have nothing that proves intent..

    You have no brain and therefore no way to understand the concept of evidence. :)

  203. [203] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words, all you have is immature personal attacks..

    You have absolutely NO FACTS that prove intent...

    OK, that's settled.. :D

  204. [204] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    196

    In other words, you believe it because you WANT to believe it, not because of any relevant facts to support the belief..

    OK, I accept that...

    You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never said I believed it; I said I bet there was a tape of it and that it sounded like something he'd say. So what? It doesn't matter for purposes of a court case other than to try to trip him up in deposition.

    If there is a tape, you'd naturally know every word he said. You could then use it to discredit your witness if he lied about anything. That's why it's best for a witness to answer "I don't recall" unless he does recall and can answer with certainty. In an earlier conversation, you whined about Hillary saying she didn't recall. As I pointed out, it's one of Donald Trump's favorite answers in the multitudes of depositions that he's given. It's always a better answer than mis-remembering or lying. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't recall" if you really don't recall because lying is not acceptable and mis-remembering can discredit everything you say.

    I really couldn't care less whether he called Comey a "nutjob" or not because all that would prove is he's a name caller, which... like being born... is not a crime. :)

  205. [205] 
    neilm wrote:

    First Flynn wanted immunity - now he is taking the 5th. This is the first step in a marathon, in my opinion.

    This is going to be a fishing trip of epic proportions. We are going to start with some big game fishing (Russia + Trump Campaign Collusion) but the incidental catches (money laundering, inappropriate deals favoring Turkey, Russia and Russian-leaning politicians in the Ukraine) are likely to provide the most results.

    And who knows what else is lurking in the bowels of the paperwork covering 45's deals over the last few years. Maybe some incidental fraud similar to the University scam? Perhaps some payments to Florida politicians that can't be squirmed out of easily?

    Let's face it:

    Russian oligarchs + 45's need for capital + Florida politicians = the sort of equation that John Grisham sold millions of books from.

  206. [206] 
    Kick wrote:

    Funny how all these Weigantians are coming out of the woodwork to profess undying devotion to Director Comey **AFTER** President Trump fired him..

    * Your cheeky bullshit gets old.
    * You don't really care too much about facts.
    * You have CRS disease and an inability to do research.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/06/comey-needs-to-clear-the-air/#comment-96015

  207. [207] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    200

    Nice dodge AND projection... :D

    I didn't dodge, you LSOS. I said it's a lousy comparison because being born is not a crime.

    Comparing the president trying to stop Comey's investigation of Mike Flynn and/or Trump/Russia to Holder investigating Obama's birth certificate is a lousy comparison because being born is not a crime.

    Later. I'm out to TCB. OAO

  208. [208] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    To prove intent, you have to be inside the President's head...

    why would that be the case? two days after the comey firing, donald told everyone exactly what was inside his head at the time of the firing, on national television.

    "regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story"

    that's what donald said. regardless of whether or not an inside source wishes to come forward publicly, nothing that has been reported conflicts with the above statement. donald told everybody in the country what was inside his head on may 9, so it's a reasonable inference that the same thing was inside his head on february 14, when he reportedly asked comey to drop the flynn investigation.

    in the course of mueller's investigation, comey's memo will come out and its content established as proven fact. (or lie, although that eventuality seems highly unlikely since neither comey nor anyone close to him has denied the media reports.)

    JL

  209. [209] 
    Paula wrote:

    Last September Orange man tweeted: "The mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

    As neilm notes: Flynn's gonna be fifthing away.

    Ah, the odor of guilt on a Monday morning!

  210. [210] 
    michale wrote:

    why would that be the case? two days after the comey firing, donald told everyone exactly what was inside his head at the time of the firing, on national television.

    As I have already explained this twice, how does that prove intent??

    It's two distinct thoughts that have nothing to do with each other..

    It certainly doesn't prove anything, let alone intent..

  211. [211] 
    michale wrote:

    n the course of mueller's investigation, comey's memo will come out and its content established as proven fact.

    Fine.. WHEN that comes it and it's contents can be verified as factual, THEN ya'all will have some facts to point out..

    How about everyone shuts up til then?? Until there are actual FACTS that prove ya'all's accusations??

    :D

  212. [212] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://publish.twitter.com/

    What Art Buchwald wrote all those years ago about Nixon defenders' arguments are being used almost word-for-word today by the righties. He lists 36, although "What about Chappaquiddick! appears a couple times. First 12:

    1. Everybody does it.
    2.What about Chappaquiddick?
    3.Pres can't keep track of EVERYTHING his staff does.
    4.The press is blowing this whole thing up.
    5. Whatever Nixon did was for national security.
    6. The Democrats are sore because they lost the election.
    7. Are you going to believe a rat like John Dean or POTUS?
    8. Wait til all the facts come out!
    9.What about Chappaquiddick?
    10. If you impeach Nixon you'll get Agnew.
    11. The only thing wrong with Watergate is they got caught.
    12. What about Daniel Ellsburg stealing the Pentagon Papers?

    No wonder FOX has been successful with the right. They collectively stopped thinking 40 years ago.

  213. [213] 
    michale wrote:

    Later. I'm out to TCB. OAO

    It's funny how ya always seem to find something you have to do right after you have been slapped down.. :D

    Brave Sir Robin ran away
    Bravely ran away away

    When danger reared its ugly head
    He bravely turned his tail and fled

    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    And gallantly he chickened out

    Bravely taking to his feet
    He beat a very brave retreat
    Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

    :D

  214. [214] 
    michale wrote:

    We are going to start with some big game fishing (Russia + Trump Campaign Collusion)

    That you yourself already conceded there is nothing there.. :D

  215. [215] 
    michale wrote:

    What with President Trump really doing some good things on his Foreign Policy trips, ya'all (NEN) are getting downright hysterical... :D

  216. [216] 
    Kick wrote:

    Unconstitutional racial gerrymandering is alive and well in North Carolina. The Supreme Court struck down 2 North Carolina congressional district maps.

    * District 1 map struck down 8-0

    * District 12 map struck down 5-3

    Back to the drawing board. :)

  217. [217] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/newt-gingrich-swan-dives-fever-swamps

    The Seth Rich invention.

    And Republicans will learn, once again, that there are really no depths they can sink to that will get them shunned from polite society.

    Yes, there are individual Republicans who aren't scum. But their party leadership and major figures go right along with horrible stuff every day, while rank and file repubs pretend it isn't really happening (and Trumpers live out their days in fantasy-land).

    Right now, to me, to say "yes, I'm a Republican" is the same as agreeing that it doesn't matter how low party bigwigs stoop, up to and including selling the country to Russia.

    The Seth Rich thing is just garden variety rat-fucking by FOX News and the cultists suck it up and spew it out.

    Republicans who possess a conscience should be so ashamed at this point.

  218. [218] 
    Paula wrote:

    [216] Kick: they only win by cheating. The Republican Way.

  219. [219] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    213

    It's funny how ya always seem to find something you have to do right after you have been slapped down.. :D

    Slapped down? Dude, that same shit over and over is not a "slap down," and it's comical how you actually think your monotonous repetitive drivel would have any effect on anybody other than to bore the shit out of them.

    It's getting sad to realize that you actually seem to believe your own ridiculous utter one-note, phone-it-in same old shit.

    *LOL*

    Later, tater. Get yourself some new material, please. :)

  220. [220] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    216

    They only win by cheating. The Republican Way.

    A human! Hey, Paula! Ain't that the truth. How about that Supreme Court decision of 8-0! Unanimous since NG can't rule on cases decided before he was "made."

    Wouldn't have mattered whether he could or not for either District. Those Republicans frothing at the mouth thinking that Gorsuch meant a rubber stamp need to take notice.

    Oh, dang. I really do have to leave now... back later. :)

  221. [221] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, dang. I really do have to leave now... back later. :)

    That's 3 times you said you "had to leave"... :D

    Run away... Run away.... Run away... :D

  222. [222] 
    michale wrote:

    Slapped down? Dude, that same shit over and over is not a "slap down," and it's comical how you actually think your monotonous repetitive drivel would have any effect on anybody other than to bore the shit out of them.

    And yet, you just HAVE to stick around..

    And, when you come back from licking your wounds, the FIRST thing, the VERY first thing you are going to do is rush back in here to read my "same shit"...

    Like I said, little bit.. You can't win..

    "You can't win.. I've got GOD on my side!!!"
    -Leland Gant, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D

  223. [223] 
    michale wrote:

    The political and media hysteria surrounding the Trump administration lies somewhere on the repulsiveness scale between the Jacobin excesses of the French Revolution and the McCarthy era. Thus far the public knows of no presidential action that would justify impeachment. Never mind, the crowd cries, let us have the verdict now. We can do the trial later.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/anti-trump-democrats-invite-chaos-1495403069

    That's the majority of ya'all (NEN) in a nutshell..

    "Don't bother us with FACTS!! Just put President Trump's head on a pike and we'll be happy"
    -WPG

    What about discussions between Trump campaign advisers and Russian or other foreign leaders? Don’t they count as high crimes and misdemeanors? No, such conversations take place all the time in national campaigns.

    What about the firing of FBI Director James Comey ? Wasn’t that suspicious? No, Mr. Comey disregarded the Justice Department chain of command and the normal proprieties of his office. He made public statements about ongoing investigations. He allowed it to leak that the president had suggested leniency for Mike Flynn, the former White House adviser now under investigation. A presidential suggestion of that nature would be neither illegal nor unprecedented.

    What about Mr. Trump’s disclosure of classified information during a meeting with Russian leaders? It’s a tempest in a teapot. The president has the authority to classify or declassify information as he wishes. I have witnessed other presidents doing it.

    What about Mr. Trump’s executive order declaring a short-term pause on immigration from countries with active terrorist movements? It may have been poorly handled, but other presidents have done similar things.

    What about all Mr. Trump’s flip-flopping? Shouldn’t a president be trustworthy and reliable? Yes, but when Mr. Trump has reversed his campaign pledges it has been mostly for the good.

    The American people may not like President Trump but the like the fact-challenged lynch mob even less...

    The majority of ya'all (again, NEN) just don't get that...

  224. [224] 
    Paula wrote:

    [220] Kick: Yep!

  225. [225] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    As I have already explained this twice, how does that prove intent??

    because intent means you meant to do something, and you were aware of what it was you were doing. donald said on national television that he was thinking about the russia investigation when he fired comey. the statement establishes both aspects of intent, firstly that he was aware the firing might impact the russia investigation, and second that he intended that impact.

    verification of the contents of comey's memos would certainly strengthen the case for intent to obstruct, but even without it there's a substantial case just based on the timelines of the investigation, the firing of comey and donald's public statements, all of which have already been verified factually.

    JL

  226. [226] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all just gotta ask yerselves one question...

    What are you going to do when Director Mueller totally and unequivocally exonerates President Trump??

    My guess is that ya'all won't even CONSIDER it..

    Cuz that worked so well for ya'all LAST time ya did that, eh?? :D

  227. [227] 
    michale wrote:

    because intent means you meant to do something, and you were aware of what it was you were doing.

    Oh... I didn't realize you meant it in THAT context..

    Yes.. President Trump INTENDED to fire Director Comey..

    You are absolutely 1000% correct in that..

    But, here's the thing...

    THAT'S NOT ILLEGAL!!! :D

    donald said on national television that he was thinking about the russia investigation when he fired comey.

    So?? He probably was thinking about a LOT of things.. None of which were ALSO not illegal..

    the statement establishes both aspects of intent, firstly that he was aware the firing might impact the russia investigation, and second that he intended that impact.

    Complete and utter bullshit...How does the President thinking about some impact PROVE that he intended that impact???

    I am sure NOT-45 considered the impact of not granting the security requirements at Benghazi would result in the deaths of 4 good Americans..

    By YOUR theory of evidence, NOT-45 INTENDED for that impact to happen...

    That is 10 times of utter bullshit claims and would be laughed out of ANY court of law...

    all of which have already been verified factually.

    And all of which have nothing to do with anything... It's nothing but tea-leave reading.. And certainly doesn't PROVE anything at all..

    You people, I swear... President Trump would say he doesn't like apple pie...

    "OH MY GODS!!!! THE ORANGE FASCIST JUST SAID HE HATES MOMS AND AMERICA!!!!"

    That is EXACTLY how utterly hysterical and totally devoid of ANY rational intelligence ya'all sound...

    There are NO FACTS that prove ANY of ya'all's accusations against President Trump..

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA...

    And, for MOST of the accusations, there's not even any facts to even SUPPORT such an accusation....

    The TRUMP RELEASED CLASSIFIED INFO TO THE RUSSIANS BECAUSE ANONYMOUS SOURCES NOT IN GOVERNMENT AND NOT AT THE MEETING IN QUESTION SAID SO is my personal favorite of ya'all's hysterical accusations, with the COMEY IS A NUT JOB accusation running second.. :D

    Come talk to me when ya'all have some REAL facts...

  228. [228] 
    michale wrote:

    Come talk to me when ya'all have some REAL facts...

    I mean that..

    When ya'all have some REAL facts that would actually be possible to use in a court of law that PROVE the accusations ya'all are making, I am more than ready to listen...

    So?? He probably was thinking about a LOT of things.. None of which were ALSO not illegal..

    Triple negative with a full gainor and a half twist... :D

    But with what ya'all got now?? It's hysterical white noise...

    Nothing more...

  229. [229] 
    michale wrote:

    On a more personal note..

    It simply DOES NOT help ya'all's (even the one or two reasonable, rational ones) case when the vast majority of ya'all go into EARTH-ENDING hysterics every time President Trump farts...

    If everything is a life-ending catastrophe than nothing is...

    Get a grip, people....

  230. [230] 
    michale wrote:

    That is EXACTLY how utterly hysterical and totally devoid of ANY rational intelligence ya'all sound...

    NEN

  231. [231] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ya'all just gotta ask yerselves one question...
    What are you going to do when Director Mueller totally and unequivocally exonerates President Trump??

    I would personally be more surprised than I was on election day.

    How many hearings did the Republicans hold on the subject of Benghazi, again? was it 6, or 7, or 12?

    The question is, what will the nutjob right do when Mueller presents a legitimate case against Trump?

    Could Trump withstand an 11-hour grilling, as Hillary did before the Benghazi committee? I doubt that seriously.

  232. [232] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Pardon me, but I appear to have understated the scope of the Benghazi investigation, which according to The Atlantic was a more than two-year investigation, encompassing 33 hearings held in congressional investigations and four public hearings, at an estimated cost of more than $7 million.

    Including the 11 hour grilling of Hillary on national television. A hearing in which, I might add, she vindicated herself calmly, classily, and thoroughly.

  233. [233] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    How does the President thinking about some impact PROVE that he intended that impact???

    come on, you're being intentionally obtuse. the fact that he didn't just think about it but also acted upon it, proves he intended it.

    firing comey was legal, thinking about the connection between the campaign and russia was legal, but both at the same time, not so much.

    JL

  234. [234] 
    michale wrote:

    come on, you're being intentionally obtuse. the fact that he didn't just think about it but also acted upon it, proves he intended it.

    That's a circular argument..

    firing comey was legal, thinking about the connection between the campaign and russia was legal, but both at the same time, not so much.

    Really??

    Show me the law that says that...

  235. [235] 
    michale wrote:

    come on, you're being intentionally obtuse.

    So, if NOT-45 thought about the impact of NOT providing proper security (4 good Americans dead) and then went ahead and DIDN'T provide proper security, then in your mind that PROVES she intended to have 4 good Americans killed...

    Good thing for NOT-45 she didn't give a single solitary THOUGHT to the impact of NOT providing proper security in Benghazi...

    Ya might actually have to concede she belongs in prison.. :D

    And we BOTH know you don't want to do that.. :D

  236. [236] 
    michale wrote:

    Think about the utter CRAZINESS of your argument..

    If one THINKS about a possible consequence, then one MUST INTEND that possible consequence..

    So, if I take up sky diving and I think of a possible consequence is I could die and then I DO die, then OBVIOUSLY (by your reasoning) I INTENDED that consequence..

    That's complete and utter BS and is not worthy of such a logical and rational mind as I know yours to be....

  237. [237] 
    michale wrote:

    I mean, that's worse than ridiculous..

    That's downright stoopid..

    I have GOT to be mis-understanding your argument..

  238. [238] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Where were you et al when myself, Liz and JL were defending Comey against the pitiful attacks BEFORE President Trump fired Comey??

    No where to be found..

    I know it may shock you..... some of us have actual jobs that preclude commenting every waking moment... So while you were busy trying to sell your shit not stinking I was busy working on this....

    https://ibb.co/ien5tF

  239. [239] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That's a circular argument..

    no, it's a linear argument. if he planned to do it, did it, then told everyone why he did it, then it logically follows that he intended to do it, for the reason he said.

    Show me the law that says that...

    title 18, sections 1503, 1505 and 1512.

    JL

  240. [240] 
    michale wrote:

    no, it's a linear argument. if he planned to do it, did it, then told everyone why he did it, then it logically follows that he intended to do it, for the reason he said.

    He said he intended to fire Comey...

    And he fired Comey...

    That is not against the law...

    Do you have President Trump saying, "I intended to stop Director Comey from investigating any Russian Collusion with my campaign."

    No, you don't..

    So quit pretending you do...

    title 18, sections 1503, 1505 and 1512.

    I can't find anything in there that says it's illegal to think about firing an FBI director and wonder the consequences....

    Nothing at all...

  241. [241] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Think about the utter CRAZINESS of your argument..
    If one THINKS about a possible consequence, then one MUST INTEND that possible consequence..

    You're missing the critical article. Trump also personally ACTED on his belief that the Russia investigation was bogus when he fired Comey. The two are taken together. That is, in many minds, evidence of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Rosenstein compounded the indictment by telling a room full of congressmen that the two page memo about Comey's mistreatment of Hillary (that the WH promoted as reason for the firing) was written after the decision to fire Comey had already been made, leading to the inescapable conclusion that the WH knew that the optics (and legal ramifications) of the firing were not good, and directed the acting AG to construct a 'cover story'. You don't need a 'cover story' when you're acting on the up-and-up now, do you?

  242. [242] 
    michale wrote:

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

    This is the same sort of "logic" that said NOT-45 has never committed any crimes in her life...

    So, chalk about another one to Democrat "logic".. :^/

  243. [243] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    let's say i swung a baseball bat and it hit my boss in the head.

    then later let's say i said on TV that i was thinking when i swung that bat about how much i hate my boss.

    wouldn't it logically follow that i intended for the bat to hit my boss?

    it's legal to swing a bat, legal to stand next to my boss, and legal to hate my boss, but the three facts together align to implicate me for intent.

    that's the situation the president is in right now.

    JL

  244. [244] 
    michale wrote:

    The two are taken together.

    In your mind, yes, I know they are..

    But YOUR mind is totally enslaved by Party bigotry and as such, what is in your mind is not what is reality...

    . That is, in many minds, evidence of conspiracy to obstruct justice.

    Yes, again.. In MANY minds..

    As such, it's NOTHING but an opinion...

    It would simply not stand in a court of law...

    You don't need a 'cover story' when you're acting on the up-and-up now, do you?

    Coming from you that is downright HILARIOUS!!! :D

  245. [245] 
    michale wrote:

    then later let's say i said on TV that i was thinking when i swung that bat about how much i hate my boss.

    wouldn't it logically follow that i intended for the bat to hit my boss?

    You can INFER intent..

    But you can't PROVE intent..

    Thank you for proving my point for me..

    that's the situation the president is in right now.

    Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying all weekend. Ya'all have OPINIONS, INNUENDOS, HYSTERICAL RANTINGS and, to that, we can add INFERENCE.

    But what ya'all DON'T have is stone cold FACTS that PROVE anything..

    Which is the level that ya'all will *NEED* if you want to take the President to court..

    It's THAT simple and I am simply amazed I have to explain this...

  246. [246] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In your mind, yes, I know they are..

    it takes some major mental gymnastics for anyone NOT to take them together, since the president himself mentioned them in the same sentence on national television.

    JL

  247. [247] 
    michale wrote:

    But, all of this DOES support one point..

    *ALL* of the other accusations against the President are totally and completely bullshit..

    Since no one wants to provide ANY facts to support THOSE accusations, we can agree that they are BS..

    And having so much hysterical BS does not help you make your case on this one point...

    We can agree on that as well.. :D

  248. [248] 
    michale wrote:

    it takes some major mental gymnastics for anyone NOT to take them together,

    No, it just take a Democrat who believes NOT-45 has never committed any crime.. :D

  249. [249] 
    michale wrote:

    Can you take President Trump to court just because ya'all can INFER something??

    No, you can't...

    So, why are ya'all wasting time claiming it's PROOF when it's not??

  250. [250] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You can INFER intent..

    But you can't PROVE intent..

    your argument degrades into solipsism. no court of law requires MATHEMATICAL proof to establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt. circumstantial evidence is frequently more than enough to convict; in this case the proven circumstances are already quite damning, with more evidence currently being vetted.

    JL

  251. [251] 
    michale wrote:

    your argument degrades into solipsism.

    No, my argument is logical and rational and IGNORES Party agendas...

    My argument is facts, pure and simple..

    no court of law requires MATHEMATICAL proof to establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

    And ya'all have OODLES... TORRENTS of "reasonable doubt"... Ya'all just can't SEE it because you can't be REASONABLE about this issue..

    circumstantial evidence is frequently more than enough to convict;

    It says, INNOCENT TIL **PROVEN** GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW

    It doesn't say, INNOCENT TIL INFERRED GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW

    in this case the proven circumstances are already quite damning,

    That's your opinion and is not really relevant due to the inherent bias.. It's not an OBJECTIVE opinion..

    with more evidence currently being vetted.

    Fine.. And when this fantasy "evidence" is vetted and released, bring it in here and THEN ya'all might have an argument..

    But until THAT time, in the HERE and now, you have NO FACTS to support a criminal case and you have NOTHING by way of facts for all the other BS accusations that ya'all have been orgasming over...

    "THESE ARE THE FACTS.. AND THEY ARE INDISPUTABLE"

  252. [252] 
    michale wrote:

    But until THAT time, in the HERE and now, you have NO FACTS to support a criminal case and you have NOTHING by way of facts for all the other BS accusations that ya'all have been orgasming over...

    Make that:

    But until THAT time, in the HERE and now, you have NO FACTS to prove a criminal case and you have NOTHING by way of facts for all the other BS accusations that ya'all have been orgasming over...

  253. [253] 
    michale wrote:

    But until THAT time, in the HERE and now, you have NO FACTS to prove a criminal case and you have NOTHING by way of facts for all the other BS accusations that ya'all have been orgasming over...

    Is that a false statement??

    yes or no...

  254. [254] 
    michale wrote:

    On another note:

    "I want to tell you how much we appreciate the reassertion of American leadership in the Middle East."
    -Prime Minister Netanyahu

    Nice!!!! :D

    Way ta go, Bibi!!!! :D

  255. [255] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yes, that is a false statement.

  256. [256] 
    michale wrote:

    yes, that is a false statement.

    I guess it's agree to disagree time..

    Because nothing (except maybe the orgasming part :D) about that statement is false..

  257. [257] 
    michale wrote:

    I guess in your world, it IS INNOCENT TIL INFERRED GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW

    But, apparently, it's NOT that when when someone has a -D after their name, because there was, literally, TORRENTS of inferences with NOT-45..

    But I guess with a person with a -D after their name, it MUST be... what was that you said... "MATHEMATICAL proof" to be charged with a crime..

    With a person with an -R after their name???

    It just takes a SINGLE lame inference...

    Color me shocked.. :^/

  258. [258] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale, since you're (prematurely) getting into the weeds of legal concepts, perhaps you should consult a legal dictionary to qualify your terminology.

    Concepts like 'inference' have a specific legal definition, as well as purpose in law. Outside the legal arena, without inference, scientists couldn't make discoveries, doctors couldn't diagnose disease, mechanics couldn't fix cars, and Sherlock Holmes couldn't solve crimes without using inference and deductive reasoning. It's not voodoo.

  259. [259] 
    michale wrote:

    Concepts like 'inference' have a specific legal definition, as well as purpose in law.

    I am betting that the definition DOESN'T say "GUILTY"....

    You got no case if all you have is that one inference..

    It's that simple..

    And the only reason ya'all can't see it is due to Party bigotry..

    If you applied this same standard to NOT-45, she would have been in jail a LONG time ago..

    But ya'all have one standard for Republicans, another standard for Democrats...

    This is simply one more example of that...

    With regards to the Comey firing, you have no criminal case..

    With regards to all the other hysterical BS, ya'all have NO FACTS....

    These are the facts whether ya'all acknowledge them or not...

  260. [260] 
    michale wrote:

    Sherlock Holmes couldn't solve crimes without using inference and deductive reasoning. It's not voodoo.

    You are speaking to a trained investigator...

    YOUR problem is you are using inference as proof...

    Inference is evidence and it's the LAMEST evidence there is.. Inference is behind eyewitness testimony in reliability.. Because it's SUBJECTIVE, dependent on factors that are as individual as the person making the inference...

    Inference, BY DEFINITION, is NOT proof..

    Ya'all are saying that this one lame inference PROVES Trump is guilty of a crime... You are saying that inference equals proof..

    And that is total, complete and utter bullshit.

    If ya'all could take a step back and see how utterly and completely RIDICULOUS ya'all sound, ya'all would agree with me...

    I can't make it any simpler than that...

  261. [261] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ya'all are saying that this one lame inference PROVES Trump is guilty of a crime.

    No, we're not. We're saying that one can infer, mostly through statements that Trump himself made, but also by comparing those statements to those made by Rosenstein, that Trump fired Comey in order to curtail or quash the investigation that the director was leading into Russian interference in the election.

    That's it. No presumption of guilt, yet, but if you see a smoking pile of leaves and a guy standing next to it saying, 'well I sure wanted those leaves to burn', is it overly presumptuous to form a hypothesis that he might have lit the match that set it afire?

  262. [262] 
    Kick wrote:

    We have a prima facia case going here. Michale's argument is that since we don't have enough evidence to convict (not his call), that we have no evidence. Obviously, we have evidence (see above).

    You are speaking to a trained investigator...

    For evidence to the contrary, please read his posts claiming we have no evidence. *LOL*

    YOUR problem is you are using inference as proof...

    Maybe he was "trained" to "investigate" at Trump University! *LOL*

    Obviously, as I've already stated, we have evidence. While it might not be enough evidence to get a conviction in a court of law, we nevertheless have evidence, and anyone claiming we don't have evidence while also claiming they are a "trained investigator" is side-splitting comedy.

    BREAKING NEWS

    President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

    Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

    Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

    Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

    Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-asked-intelligence-chiefs-to-push-back-against-fbi-collusion-probe-after-comey-revealed-its-existence/2017/05/22/394933bc-3f10-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.874a31e01eaa

    --------------------------

    Balthy, JL, et al, will you gentlemen and ladies kindly add this evidence to our pile of burning leaves? :)

  263. [263] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well I for one agree with 45 - he didn't say "Israel". He also didn't say "supercalifragilisticexpialidotious", as the press has also not stated.

    How many more words that he didn't say and nobody claimed he said are we going to need to cover?

    Maybe he just is tired - I mean his lack of stamina was used as the excuse why he mixed up "islamic" and "islamist". But then nobody expects an old man to have the same stamina as a young man like Obama.

  264. [264] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    221

    That's 3 times you said you "had to leave"... :D

    Yes, I would say that taken together those 3 statements were evidence of my intent to leave. Then I actually did leave. Oh, shit. BUSTED!

    Funny how that whole evidence thing works, iddn't it?

    Class dismissed, sugar. :)

  265. [265] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    212

    What Art Buchwald wrote all those years ago about Nixon defenders' arguments are being used almost word-for-word today by the righties. He lists 36, although "What about Chappaquiddick! appears a couple times.

    Oh, Paula... this is awesome, very nice! All that "whataboutism" didn't help Tricky Dicky Nixy way back then any more than it will benefit Benedict Donald presently.

    That list of Buchwald's sounds awfully familiar, right?
    Just change a few names and you can literally repurpose that whole thing from Watergate. Hey, how about #22... a shady character emerges involved in both incidents... go figure!

    -------------------------

    22. Maybe the Committee for the Reelection of the President went a little too far, but they were just a bunch of eager kids.

    -------------------------

    Buchwald is talking about CREEP! Roger Stone was the youngest of those CREEPy kids. He's a slippery one, that Roger... deflection is his specialty.

    Stone and Manafort will rightly want to keep the spotlight shining on the spy, who I believe right about now is beginning to comply. Congratulations to the FBI.

    No wonder FOX has been successful with the right. They collectively stopped thinking 40 years ago.

    And Benedict Donald, a lifelong Democrat and con artist of multiple decades, opportunistically changes his party in order to become a Republican and exploit the spoon-fed and primed Fox Borg Collective. :)

  266. [266] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    263

    Well I for one agree with 45 - he didn't say "Israel". He also didn't say "supercalifragilisticexpialidotious", as the press has also not stated.

    This admission of what he didn't say... that journalists never said he said... taken along with his tweet wherein he does say what he said... looks an awfully lot like an admission of exactly what the journalists did say he actually did.

    Does anyone need to be reminded here that the United States intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to denigrate and harm Clinton's electoral chances and potential presidency and that Trump administration officials have reiterated this fact on multiple occasions?

    --------------------------
    Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump

    As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining....
    6:03 AM - 16 May 2017

    Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump

    ...to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
    6:13 AM - 16 May 2017

    --------------------------

    And with those nuggets of evidence taken together, Benedict Donald confirms he disseminated "Code Word" classified information to an adversary of the United States, which interestingly is exactly what the journalists reported that he did... although Trump insists he didn't reveal the source of the "code word" classified information, which as Neil correctly points out, the press never reported that he did.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/trump-russia-code-word/526833/

    So just how bad is the damage? On a scale of 1 to 10—and I’m just ball parking here—it’s about a billion. The story, which has since been confirmed by The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Reuters, Buzzfeed, and CNN, notes that the president could have jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State. Not America’s source. Somebody else’s. Presumably from an allied intelligence service who now knows that the American president cannot be trusted with sensitive information.

    The type of information Trump cavalierly shared fell under a classification known as “code word,” according to the Post. There are three basic levels of classified information. Confidential information is defined as anything that could reasonably be expected to “cause damage” to American national security if shared without authorization. Secret information is one step up, considered to have the potential to cause “serious damage” if revealed. Top Secret information is a higher classification level still, comprising anything that could reasonably be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to U.S. national security if revealed.

    Code word is beyond Top Secret. It limits access to classified information to a much narrower pool of people to provide an extra layer of security. Many secrets are super-secrets—Harry Truman, as vice president, didn’t know about the Manhattan project. He learned of it only after Franklin Delano Roosevelt died and Truman was sworn in as president. Code word classification is so far off the scale, even fake spies rarely refer to it in the movies. Technically, the president can "declassify" anything he wants, so he did not violate any laws. But as Lawfare notes, if the president tweeted out the nuclear codes, he also wouldn't violate the law—but he would rightly be considered unfit for office.

    Did Trump reveal intelligence crown jewels or just boast about the fact that he liked diamonds? According to the Post he revealed information about a purported ISIS plot involving laptops. It’s likely, however, that Tillerson, McMaster, the Post and the Times are ALL correct: The president did not reveal sources or methods or military operations. But that doesn’t matter much if he gave away information that will enable the Russians to identify the source or the methods. It looks like he did, since according to the Post’s account he talked about the content of a specific plot, the potential harm, and the location of the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the allied state’s intelligence service detected it. It was almost everything except the GPS coordinates. The denials by Tillerson and McMaster are a classic case of intelligence super-parsing—saying things that are technically and narrowly true but may not be accurate at all. No spin can hide the fact that the breach was deadly serious and reckless in the extreme.

    How many more words that he didn't say and nobody claimed he said are we going to need to cover?

    LOL

    Maybe he just is tired - I mean his lack of stamina was used as the excuse why he mixed up "islamic" and "islamist". But then nobody expects an old man to have the same stamina as a young man like Obama.

    True that. And how about Trump's ridiculous statement --
    stupid or tired? -- where he states:

    “We just got back from the Middle East. We just got back from Saudi Arabia.”

    Poor Israeli Ambassador Dermer, he did his best to contain his laughter; you should have heard the room I was in and seen the spew of cascading beverages. :)

  267. [267] 
    Paula wrote:

    [265] Kick: "And Benedict Donald, a lifelong Democrat and con artist of multiple decades, opportunistically changes his party in order to become a Republican and exploit the spoon-fed and primed Fox Borg Collective."

    Yep!

  268. [268] 
    michale wrote:

    Obviously, as I've already stated, we have evidence.

    Exactly..

    You have EVIDENCE..

    Not PROOF...

    I am glad you finally came around and admitted I was right..

    Class dismissed.. :D

  269. [269] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh Neil....

    Do you have that Comey testimony you promised us??

    No???

    How come??? :D

  270. [270] 
    michale wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS

    President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

    No, he did not..

    You are lying again...

  271. [271] 
    michale wrote:

    But thank you for proving my point.

    You have NO FACTS to support that accusation...

    Let me repeat it because you obviously have a comprehension problem.

    YOU HAVE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THAT ACCUSATION

    Yet, you STILL make that accusation even though you have NO FACTS...

    Must be so sad for you to be in such throes of PTDS....

  272. [272] 
    michale wrote:

    NATO's feel-good meeting aims to impress Trump
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-nato-idUSKBN18J1QP?il=0

    And not a SINGLE mention of limiting speeches because President Trump has trouble following things...

    What Balthazar spewed (and didn't provide ANY facts for) was simply a long standing rule that NATO delegates limit their speeches to 3 mins..

    Who knew that simply asking for ya'all to provide FACTS to support ya'all's hysteria would shut ya'all up!!! :D

  273. [273] 
    michale wrote:

    Here's exactly what is wrong with you people (NEN)..

    BREAKING NEWS!!!

    Anonymous White House sources are reporting that President Trump ate his salad with the dinner fork!!!

    While not necessarily illegal, many Democrats see an eerie similarity with Watergate and are demanding an immediate and completely investigation..

    THIS JUST IN!!!!

    It's being reported that when President Trump {gasp} ate his salad with his dinner fork, he actually put dressing on his salad.. RUSSIAN DRESSING!!!

    Maxine Waters is reported to hysterically scream, 'THAT'S TREASON!!!' No word on whether or not her mic was actually working at the time..

    We will follow this story and give ya all the BS as soon as we make it up..

    That's EXACTLY what ya'all (NEN) are all about... :^/

  274. [274] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    268

    Exactly..

    You have EVIDENCE..

    Not PROOF...

    Mr. You-Are-Speaking-To-A-Trained-Investigator reveals the level of his training by posting the above.

    *LOL* "You have EVIDENCE.. Not PROOF..."

    It's not your call whether or not we have sufficient evidence to prove our case. You're biased and therefore we could rub your nose in shit and you'd insist you couldn't smell a thing.

    I am glad you finally came around and admitted I was right..

    Class dismissed.. :D

    Dude. Go back and read this thread. You started out saying we had no evidence to prove our case. Now it's YOU who are admitting we have evidence. :)

  275. [275] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    270

    BREAKING NEWS

    President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

    No, he did not..

    You are lying again...

    You have no idea whether Trump did that or not so it is you who, in fact, are lying.

    I did post BREAKING NEWS and gave the link from which it came. If you think the reporters are lying, you should take it up with the reporters. I am guessing they can prove what they wrote, but I know for a fact that you can't prove Trump didn't do what they reported.

    Please continue to prove your ignorance every chance you get; you are so like your orange idol. It's also helpful and a real time saver when you prattle on and on and provide the proof for the impeachment of your own credibility. :)

  276. [276] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    271

    But thank you for proving my point.

    You have NO FACTS to support that accusation...

    I posted BREAKING NEWS and provided the link from which it came. Try to keep up.

    Let me repeat it because you obviously have a comprehension problem.

    YOU HAVE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THAT ACCUSATION

    Do you understand the concept of BREAKING NEWS? Are you able to follow a link to a breaking news story? Are you really this stupid?

    Yet, you STILL make that accusation even though you have NO FACTS...

    It's not my accusation, sugar. It's breaking news from journalists. Follow the link, sugar. :)

  277. [277] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    273

    Here's exactly what is wrong with you people (NEN)..

    Poor widdle baby doesn't like commenters to post breaking news about his Orange Messiah. It's just too much for his widdle system to handle. It never occurred to him to NOT read it.

    Go crawl into your safe space, sugar. You clearly can't handle the newspapers. *LOL* :)

  278. [278] 
    michale wrote:

    It's not your call whether or not we have sufficient evidence to prove our case. You're biased and therefore we could rub your nose in shit and you'd insist you couldn't smell a thing.

    Yes it is my call..

    And, as you have admitted, you have NO PROOF of your claims..

    It's not my accusation, sugar. It's breaking news from journalists. Follow the link, sugar. :)

    Nice dodge.. By posting the accusation, you own it..

    NOW you are afraid to own up to it??

    Typical...

    You have nothing but an inference that MAY or MAY NOT be a fact..

    You have absolutely NO FACTS that support ANY of your accusations against President Trump...

    This is fact...

    You lose, Victoria... :D

  279. [279] 
    michale wrote:

    Poor widdle baby doesn't like commenters to post breaking news about his Orange Messiah.

    No, I just would like that there actually be some FACTS in ya'all's comments..

    But, apparently ya'all (NEN) simply are incapable of POSTING any facts...

    Sad.....

  280. [280] 
    michale wrote:

    The ONLY real fact you have is that Trump said blaa blaa blaa..

    But it's ya'all's INFERENCE that it was criminal..

    But ya'all have proven time and time again that your goal is to take down Trump..

    So, ya'all's inference is not admissible evidence..

    A trained investigator (such as myself) would laugh ya'all out of court...

  281. [281] 
    michale wrote:

    Let's take JL's example of where he said he hates his boss, he has a bat in his hand and the boss is hit with a bat..

    Now the INFERENCE is that JL just hit his boss with a bat..

    And it's a logical INFERENCE.. Especially for someone who hates JL and wants to take JL down...

    But for someone who KNOWS JL, who KNOWS that JL is a peaceful mild-mannered teacher who could NEVER harm a living soul, the INFERENCE would be much MUCH different...

    You see the point??

    An inference is influenced by our personal biases and bigotries...

    So, an INFERENCE (which is all ya'all have, by ya'all's own admission...) is not worth spit as factual evidence...

  282. [282] 
    michale wrote:

    So we're back to the one single and undeniable fact...

    Ya'all HAVE none..

    Facts, that is...

  283. [283] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    282

    So we're back to the one single and undeniable fact...

    Ya'all HAVE none..

    Facts, that is...

    Here's some facts.

    ** I posted some BREAKING NEWS and supplied the link. You went ballistic and whined like a baby and called me a liar because you didn't like the news I posted. Then you insisted that by posting an accusation from a newspaper report that a person "owns it."

    ** You posted a name that you've been asked to stop doing by CW and by me. I was nice about it at the time, but I did ask you to stop using it. You clearly have a reading comprehension problem.

  284. [284] 
    michale wrote:

    ** I posted some BREAKING NEWS and supplied the link. You went ballistic and whined like a baby and called me a liar because you didn't like the news I posted. Then you insisted that by posting an accusation from a newspaper report that a person "owns it."

    You posted bullshit and treated it as fact...

    ** You posted a name that you've been asked to stop doing by CW and by me. I was nice about it at the time, but I did ask you to stop using it. You clearly have a reading comprehension problem.

    Waaaaa Waaaaaaaaa

    My comprehension is just fine.. I simply chose to ignore your request...

    If ya don't like it.. Tough...

  285. [285] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    ** I posted some BREAKING NEWS and supplied the link. You went ballistic and whined like a baby and called me a liar because you didn't like the news I posted. Then you insisted that by posting an accusation from a newspaper report that a person "owns it."

    You posted bullshit and treated it as fact...

    Now, if you want to concede that what you posted was bullshit with absolutely NO supporting facts or evidence then I can drop it..

    Until such time as you do so, you own it and I will continue to call you on your bullshit and lies..

  286. [286] 
    Kick wrote:

    Now, if you want to concede that what you posted was bullshit with absolutely NO supporting facts or evidence then I can drop it..

    I posted an article from a newspaper. If you can't handle the news, you're in the wrong place. I will be conceding that someone else's reporting is "bullshit" when you do the same for all the articles that you've posted from Fox News, Breitbart, Alex Jones, Drudge, and similar right-wing propaganda, fantasy, and conspiracy theory websites.

    To be clear, I will be conceding that someone else's reporting is "bullshit with absolutely NO supporting facts or evidence" when Hell freezes over. In addition, I will continue to post newspaper articles and encourage everyone in Weigantia to redouble their efforts to do the same. A person posting a newspaper article doesn't mean that person owns it by any stretch of the imagination, but the fact that you're now requesting that commenters cease and desist from posting breaking news about your Orange Loose Lipped Messiah and turn this blog into a safe space means WE OWN YOU. :)

  287. [287] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    I posted an article from a newspaper. If you can't handle the news, you're in the wrong place.

    'News' I can handle.

    But that wasn't news. It was a baseless and factless hit job..

    Not a BIT of 'news' in it..

    As you yourself concede...

    A person posting a newspaper article doesn't mean that person owns it by any stretch of the imagination, but the fact that you're now requesting that commenters cease and desist from posting breaking news

    Not at all. I simply point out how nice it would be if ya'all actually posted FACTS...

    But I realize that ignorant bigots like yourself aren't equated with the concept of facts...

    about your Orange Loose Lipped Messiah and turn this blog into a safe space means WE OWN YOU. :)

    BBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yes, Victoria.. You "own" me. And yet you CAN'T stop me from calling you by your name..

    You hang on my every comment.. You can't tear yourself away from my comments and then you rush right back here to address my comments..

    Yep, Victoria.. The FACTS clearly show that it is I who own you.. :D

  288. [288] 
    michale wrote:

    Yep, Victoria.. The FACTS clearly show that it is I who own you.. :D

    As you yourself admit right here:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/22/trumps-exhausting-first-road-trip/#comment-100912

    You've been PWNED, Victoria...

  289. [289] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    287

    'News' I can handle.

    Clearly, you have demonstrated this is NOT the case. I posted a newspaper article under the heading BREAKING NEWS, followed by the link to the article. You have been whining like a squealing pig about it ever since. You're pathetic. No... I will not stop posting the work of journalists in order to spare you from the news. This is not your safe space.

    But that wasn't news. It was a baseless and factless hit job..

    You are entitled to your opinion of the news I post. Feel free to squeal like a pig about it, as you have been doing.

    Not at all. I simply point out how nice it would be if ya'all actually posted FACTS...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/19/ftp437/#comment-100696

    So saying someone is "lying" is pointing out how nice it would be it they posted facts. It's a damn newspaper article... time to get over it because there's more that are going to be posted. BUT... if I post the utter bullshit and conspiracy theory shit from Fox News, Alex Jones, and Drudge, you'll have no problem with that, right? That's a rhetorical question not requiring an answer.

    But I realize that ignorant bigots like yourself aren't equated with the concept of facts...

    It's a newspaper article; take up your whiny complaints with the author. Besides, anyone who voted for President Pathological Liar can't possibly expect people to believe that facts matter to them.

    You hang on my every comment.. You can't tear yourself away from my comments and then you rush right back here to address my comments..

    I leave on a regular basis, and you call it running away and waste space with your lame monotonous bullshit. I also read your monotonous shit for months and didn't comment on a single word of it (won a vehicle of my choice), and I don't rush ANYWHERE... just ask my significant other; he would get a good laugh out of that and tell you in no uncertain terms to pound sand.

    Yep, Victoria.. The FACTS clearly show that it is I who own you.. :D

    Why you impecunious, illiterate, squealing, whiny little pig; you couldn't own my car, but you'll always have my pity. :)

  290. [290] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria...

    You are entitled to your opinion of the news I post.

    It's not an opinion, it's a fact..

    There are NO FACTS in your "news" comment..

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA...

    Why you impecunious, illiterate, squealing, whiny little pig; you couldn't own my car, but you'll always have my pity. :)

    Who said anything about your car?? I own YOU.. You are my puppet and dance when I pull your strings.. :D

  291. [291] 
    michale wrote:

    PWNED.... :D

  292. [292] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    288

    Crack a book and learn some reading comprehension ability, and you'll discover that this post is me explaining that you're wasting your time if you expect me to post to your liking. I simply will NOT be posting to suit your monotonous and repetitive bullshit, and if you haven't figured that out by now, then you don't even own a clue.

    Moving on, now. I got newspaper articles to post on the newest thread so OAO... I'm TCB on the new thread. :)

  293. [293] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Crack a book and learn some reading comprehension ability, and you'll discover that this post is me explaining that you're wasting your time if you expect me to post to your liking. I simply will NOT be posting to suit your monotonous and repetitive bullshit, and if you haven't figured that out by now, then you don't even own a clue.

    You can spin it however way it helps you to sleep at night..

    But the fact is, you have conceded that what I say dictates how you comment...

    Yer PWNED....

    That's all there is to it.. :D

  294. [294] 
    michale wrote:

    Here ya go, Victoria...

    http://dl.glitter-graphics.com/pub/956/956831ojqbzqjnh4.gif

    Just for you.. :D

  295. [295] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Moving on, now. I got newspaper articles to post on the newest thread so OAO... I'm TCB on the new thread. :)

    Apparently, I scared ya away from that.. heh :D

  296. [296] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    295

    Apparently, I scared ya away from that.. heh :D

    There you go hanging on my every move again.

    Sad little goober. :^(

  297. [297] 
    michale wrote:

    There you go hanging on my every move again.

    I see you got yer courage back up.

    AND was caught in another lie.. :D

    PWNED!! :D

  298. [298] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    295

    Apparently, I scared ya away from that.. heh :D

    Goober in his double wide actually thinks he "scared me away" from posting.

    Ignorant and sad little goober. :^(

  299. [299] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Goober in his double wide actually thinks he "scared me away" from posting.

    BBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You just can't see how bad I own you.

    PWNED...... :D

Comments for this article are closed.