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

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. :^(

I see you got yer courage back up.

AND was caught in another lie.. :D

PWNED!! :D

Apparently, I scared ya away from that.. heh :D

There you go hanging on my every move again.

Sad little goober. :^(

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

http://dl.glitter-graphics.com/pub/956/956831ojqbzqjnh4.gif

Just for you.. :D

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

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. :)

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

'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. :)

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...

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

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. :)

** 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..

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...

So we're back to the one single and undeniable fact...

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.

Ya'all HAVE none..

Facts, that is...

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...

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...

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.....

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

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* :)

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. :)

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. :)

Exactly..

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. :)

BREAKING NEWS!!!

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... :^/

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

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....

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...

Do you have that Comey testimony you promised us??

No???

How come??? :D

Exactly..

You have EVIDENCE..

Not PROOF...

I am glad you finally came around and admitted I was right..

Class dismissed.. :D

Yep!

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

...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.

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. :)

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. :)

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. :)

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.

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? :)

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?

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...

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...

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.

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.. :^/

I guess it's agree to disagree time..

Because nothing (except maybe the orgasming part :D) about that statement is false..

"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

Is that a false statement??

yes or no...

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...

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"

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

No, you can't...

So, why are ya'all wasting time claiming it's PROOF when it's not??

No, it just take a Democrat who believes NOT-45 has never committed any crime.. :D

*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

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

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...

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

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

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".. :^/

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?

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...

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

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

That's downright stoopid..

I have GOT to be mis-understanding 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....

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

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...

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

Including the 11 hour grilling of Hillary on national television. A hearing in which, I might add, she vindicated herself calmly, classily, and thoroughly.

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.

NEN

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....

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...

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...

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

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

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 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...

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

That's 3 times you said you "had to leave"... :D

Run away... Run away.... Run away... :D

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. :)

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. :)

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.

* District 1 map struck down 8-0

* District 12 map struck down 5-3

Back to the drawing board. :)

That you yourself already conceded there is nothing there.. :D

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

Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

:D

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.

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

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..

As neilm notes: Flynn's gonna be fifthing away.

Ah, the odor of guilt on a Monday morning!

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

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

* 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

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.

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. :)

You have absolutely NO FACTS that prove intent...

OK, that's settled.. :D

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. :)

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...