ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [473] -- Mueller's Busy Week

[ Posted Friday, February 23rd, 2018 – 18:28 PST ]

Bob Mueller has had a busy and productive week. His investigation is intensifying quickly, as it gains speed and moves closer and closer to the inner Trump circle. Just a week ago, Mueller's team dropped an indictment on 13 Russians for meddling in the 2016 election. By Tuesday, a previously-unmentioned lawyer reached a plea deal with Mueller. Yesterday, Mueller filed an indictment with 32 counts against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Today, Gates officially flipped, and pled guilty to two counts against him, conspiracy and lying to federal agents. Not just another #MuellerFriday, in other words, but a full-on #MuellerWeek. No word from President Trump's Twitter account yet (as of this writing), but if last weekend was any preview, it sure ought to be fun to see him flail around for the next few days as the noose gets tighter and tighter around his innermost circle.

Oh, and as icing on the cake, although nobody at the White House has come right out and admitted it on the record yet, Jared Kushner probably lost his top secret security clearance today, since it was the one-week deadline that John Kelly had set last week for revoking all temporary clearance access to the nation's highest secrets. So there's that for Trump to tweet about too, should he choose to do so.

Since the Gates news just broke, there hasn't been much reaction to it so far, but by this time tomorrow we're sure everyone will have weighed in on exactly what it all means. The two charges Gates admits he's guilty of carry a possible prison sentence of up to 10 years. Reportedly, Gates and Mueller have agreed in the plea deal to ask for a sentence of 57 to 71 months in prison, which translates to just under 5 to 6 years.

This all is going to put an incredible amount of pressure on Manafort, who is accused of laundering $30 million to hide it from the I.R.S. Unlike the other charges he's already been indicted on, this should be relatively simple for the prosecution to prove. Mueller is building his case like it was a RICO investigation, which is precisely what everyone who knows Mueller's style expected him to do. You go after the little fish, and flip them to get the bigger fish. The little guys flip on the medium guys. The medium guys flip on the big guys. The big guys flip on the main targets of the investigation. Mueller is now at "the big guys" stage of this progression. If Manafort flips, the only next step will lead directly to Trump's inner circle, Trump's family, and Trump himself. So, as we said, it'll sure be interesting to see what Trump tweets this weekend, because by now he should be breaking out in a cold sweat.

But rampant lawbreaking by top Trump advisors wasn't the only story of the week, of course. The surviving students from the massacre at Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School occupied center stage of the political debate this week, as they expressed both their outrage and their new commitment to changing lax gun laws for the better.

We personally cannot ever remember a political movement in our lifetimes that grew so big so fast. People are saying "this feels different," because it does. Not just different from the reactions to previous shootings, but different from pretty much any other such movement in our memory (with the possible exception of Occupy Wall Street, which also rocketed onto the political scene in an extremely short period of time).

So far, the student activists have appeared on more television news interviews than most House members (and even many obscure Senate members) will see over their entire political careers. They have staged a bus trip to their state capital to lobby their legislature on gun control. Some of them have spoken directly to President Trump, while others got the chance to confront Senator Marco Rubio face-to-face. They have organized a "March For Survival" on Washington D.C. next month, and they're now planning for 500,000 people to attend. They've gotten millions of dollars in funding for their cause from luminaries such as George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey. They have gotten even Republicans in Florida to begin shifting their political position away from the hard line demanded by the National Rifle Association. Speaking of the N.R.A., the students also seem to have given them a healthy dose of fear, as the students' support grows by the day. And, of course, the students have been viciously attacked with falsehoods and conspiracy theories, some of which were retweeted by the president's own son.

All of that happened, in a week-and-a-half's time. It has been less than two weeks since the shooting, and the students have not cowered in fear; instead, they have taken the American political system by storm to express their outrage over elected officials who refuse to act. So far, they've gotten Donald Trump to move quickly on the effort to ban bump stocks (which the previous massacre in Las Vegas failed to do), and Republicans are now hastily making noises about raising the minimum age to buy an assault rifle, improving the background check system, and other positions the N.R.A. usually fights against. Even these small baby steps are astounding, for a movement not even two weeks old.

We would have given them this week's "most impressive" award, but the students are not partisan. They are instead a single-issue group. There's a lot of overlap between the Democratic Party and gun control advocacy, but we cannot paint the students with a partisan label for their nonpartisan efforts, so we had to praise them here in the introduction instead.

Before he met with some student victims this week, Trump apparently had a little chat with someone from the N.R.A., since by the time it happened he was singing the same exact song that Wayne LaPierre was. The problem, according to Trump, is that we need a "good guy with a gun" to be there to fix everything for us. So let's just arm the teachers! There, problem solved!

This, of course, ignores completely the fact that, like the Columbine shooting, there was actually an armed police officer on school grounds. Unlike Columbine, however, the guy did nothing and never engaged in a shootout with the killer. Instead, he stayed outside for the entire time the massacre was taking place. So much for that "good guy with a gun" theory. In the real world, it's a lot harder for a guy with a handgun to take out a guy with an assault rifle than Hollywood has made some people believe, apparently. Maybe instead of "a good guy with a gun" we should require every cop at every school to just be Rambo. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Oh, and there was also the fact that in May of 2016, Trump himself tweeted: "Crooked Hillary said that I want guns brought into the school classroom. Wrong!" But then you just knew there'd be an old Trump tweet contradicting his stance, didn't you? After all, there has been on just about every other issue, so why should this one be any different?

The Mueller investigation and the shooting fallout so dominated the news this week that we're not even going to attempt to itemize the minor political stories this time around, but there were two that did catch our eye.

The first was the new Pennsylvania redistricting map that their state supreme court officially mandated, after the politicians couldn't agree on their own map. This is a much fairer map, which will go a long ways toward erasing the blatant Republican gerrymandering, and this map will be in place for the midterm elections later this year. This could mean Democrats pick up from three to five new House seats, making a takeover of the House that much easier to accomplish. We wrote about this earlier in the week, in more detail, in case anyone's interested.

But our final note is also an interesting one from the race for the House. Here's the story, from Vice News:

Levi Sanders, [Senator Bernie Sanders's] only biological child, [said] that he is actively considering running for Congress in New Hampshire's 1st District, an open seat expected to be one of the most contested in the country in 2018. "Oh absolutely, I'm definitely considering it. I'm excited, motivated, and interested in the race," Levi said. "I'm just dotting my i's and crossing my t's." The 48-year-old Levi said that he would run on a similar platform of Medicare for all and free college tuition that animated his father's presidential run in 2016, when the elder Sanders beat Hillary Clinton by 22 points in New Hampshire.

So there's that to look forward to! On that happy note, let's move on to this week's awards.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This week our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to an organization: the Center for American Progress think tank. This organization, described in the news article as "the heart of the Democratic establishment, a think tank that is the closest thing to a Democratic government-in-exile," has put forth a universal healthcare coverage plan titled "Medicare Extra For All." This is to distinguish it from the "Medicare For All" plan put forth by Bernie Sanders. We suppose if it's ever enacted, it'll be shortened somewhat, down to "MedicX4A" or perhaps the simpler "MedicareX."

It's not truly a single-payer plan, and still has "a continued role for private insurance," but it is miles beyond anything the Democratic establishment has ever embraced previously. Democrats appear to be uniting behind the principle, "something that wasn't true even a year ago." Here are the important takeaways from the article:

While this evolution has been in-process for a while, the fact is that as of now, the Democratic Party is converging on consensus around the goal of universal coverage with a much stronger role for government. You may recall that in the last presidential election, the party's candidate wasn't willing to go that far. Today, nearly every Democrat considering a run for the White House in 2020 has endorsed the idea of universal coverage.

. . .

So here are some key features of the CAP plan:

  • Everyone would be eligible for Medicare Extra. If you have employer coverage, existing Medicare, VA coverage or anything else, you'd have the option to stay with what you've got or enroll in the new plan.
  • Anyone without insurance would be automatically enrolled as soon as they show up at the doctor or a hospital; children would also be automatically enrolled at birth.
  • A wide range of benefits would be covered, including preventive care, hospitalization, dental and vision, and mental health treatment.
  • Those with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level would pay no premiums; above that premiums would rise on a sliding scale capped at 10 percent of income.
  • Deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket costs would also vary by income.
  • Employer-provided coverage would remain, but employers could choose to enroll their employees in Medicare Extra instead. Individuals could also choose to leave their employer plan and enroll in Medicare Extra.
  • Medicaid and CHIP would be integrated into the new plan.
  • Costs would be brought down by paying something similar to current Medicare rates to providers, negotiating lower drug prices, implementing payment reforms and streamlining the health-care bureaucracy.
  • Premiums would be collected through the tax system, and new excise taxes and taxes on high earners would pay for the costs that remain.

It's an ambitious plan, but it's also politically savvy. First, unlike the [Affordable Care Act], it's easy to explain. You can say, "Anyone who wants Medicare can get it," which may not be 100 percent accurate (it would be similar to existing Medicare but not identical), but it basically describes the idea. Second, the only easily identifiable losers are the rich, who'd see some tax increases -- and that's something most Americans were in favor of even before the GOP passed a ginormous tax cut for corporations and the wealthy. And it incorporates plenty of free choice for both individuals and employers.

That last sentence seems crucial, to us at least. Free choice is always popular, politically, after all. In fact, what the plan amounts to is what used to be called "the public option" -- a public health insurance system that would, in essence, compete with private insurance companies. This is the best transitional plan for moving from what we've got now towards the goal of true single-payer that we've personally ever seen. It allows for individual choice and would slowly transition millions of Americans onto the new system. And, unlike just about every single-payer proposal out there, it specifically identifies how it will be funded.

Rather than running on some vague notion of "we want to keep Obamacare, but make it slightly better," Democratic candidates for public office should be proud to run on the Medicare Extra For All plan. It doesn't go far enough for some, but it certainly goes a lot further than Hillary Clinton was willing to run on last time around. The article also notes that it was Donald Trump and the Republicans who have forced the issue (by trying to drive a stake through Obamacare), but the Democratic establishment deserves credit for both realizing what a potent issue this is going to be in 2018 and for not retreating into some weak incrementalist position.

This is a bold plan. It seems entirely do-able, with the proper political will behind it (and a much bigger contingent of Democrats in Congress, of course). So for putting the plan out there this week, we hereby award the Center for American Progress our coveted Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate the Center for American Progress on their official contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Sadly, we are also giving the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to an organization. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the organization within the House of Representatives charged with getting more Democrats elected to the House, unloaded a blistering broadside this week... on a fellow Democrat who is running for the House.

Here's the story in a nutshell:

On Thursday evening, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took the extraordinary step of publicly attacking a prominent Democratic candidate in a contested Texas primary. The party committee's move was made all the more jarring given the background of the candidate, Laura Moser, who in 2017 became a hero of the Trump resistance movement as the creator of Daily Action, a text-messaging tool that channeled progressive anger into a single piece of activism per day.

"Voters in Houston have organized for over a year to hold Rep. [John] Culberson accountable and win this Clinton district," DCCC Communications Director Meredith Kelly told the Texas Tribune. "Unfortunately, Laura Moser's outright disgust for life in Texas disqualifies her as a general election candidate, and would rob voters of their opportunity to flip Texas' 7th in November."

The comment followed the release of an opposition dossier the party compiled on Moser. To date, the DCCC has made only two such memos public, one on Moser, and the other on arch-conservative Rick Saccone, a Republican running in an upcoming special election in Pennsylvania.

"Democratic voters need to hear that Laura Moser is not going to change Washington. She is a Washington insider, who begrudgingly moved to Houston to run for Congress," warned the DCCC in its memo.

Let's all let that sink in for a moment. The DCCC conducted opposition research on a Democrat. Then they put it in the nastiest language they could, and publicly released it as a memo. This even included the slur "Washington insider" -- which is downright laughable considering it is coming from a whole bunch of Washington insiders. The article in The Intercept goes on to point out further hypocrisies (of the "pot, meet kettle" variety) in the DCCC's position.

And who is the DCCC doing all this for? The other candidates in the primary race, who are (shall we say) not exactly paragons of progressive virtue:

The dropping of the opposition research on Moser came after The Intercept published an article Thursday morning highlighting a rift in the race, with the pro-choice women's group EMILY's List backing Lizzie Pannill Fletcher against Moser. The DCCC and EMILY's List often work hand in glove. Meanwhile, candidate Alex Triantaphyllis, a former Goldman Sachs analyst, has told people on the campaign trail he was recruited by the DCCC, according to local Indivisible leader Daniel Cohen.

Fletcher, a corporate lawyer with ties to a mega-donor steel magnate, worked for a firm that routinely represents employers. The firm recently defeated local janitorial workers in a labor law case by studying social media feeds to ensure the jury had a healthy number of Trump supporters, a tactic it later boasted about publicly. Fletcher said she didn't work directly on the case. But the local AFL-CIO made a rare non-endorsement in the race, urging residents to vote for any candidate other than Fletcher, and pledging to do what it can to defeat her.

No wonder direct donations to the DCCC are reportedly down this election cycle, while donations to individual progressive candidates are up. In response to the attack memo, Moser tweeted a Michelle Obama quote: "When they go low, we go high." It's downright astounding that a Democratic activist candidate for a House seat would ever have to use this particular quote against an official organ of the Democratic Party.

This is really beyond disappointing, but the award is what it is, so we hereby name the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee the Most Disappointing Democrats Of The Week. For shame! They should all be forced to stay after class and write that Michelle Obama quote on the board 5,000 times each.

[Contact the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on its contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 473 (2/23/18)

Another hodgepodge week in the talking points department. Congress was off this week (yet again), so most of these were written in reaction to what Trump and the Republicans have been doing in the meantime. And, of course, Bob Mueller -- can't forget him, can we?

 

1
   Treason!

This is a pretty serious word to toss around, but in this case it certainly seems appropriate.

"What with all the other news last week, you may have missed the story about a Russian oligarch who created his own private army of mercenaries to fight in Syria, doubtlessly with the full approval of the Kremlin. Several of these mercenaries were killed recently by American soldiers, because they were preparing to attack U.S. forces in the field. Oh, and the same guy who is obviously now making war against American forces was just indicted last week by Bob Mueller for running a troll farm in Russia which interfered in our elections. This means that a good case can be made that any American found to have conspired with this Russian oligarch is guilty of 'levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.' You might recognize that language, because it is from Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution -- where it defines what constitutes treason."

 

2
   Getcher programs! Programs heah!

Just in case you haven't been keeping up....

"The Washington Post has helpfully put together a handy scorecard for the Bob Mueller investigation, because they know how hard it is to keep up with all the indictments flying. When it ran, it listed over 100 charges from Mueller's indictments (so far) which targeted 19 separate individuals. These numbers, obviously, are going to climb much higher before Mueller is done, and in fact the article doesn't even reflect the fact that Rick Gates has now decided to cut his own plea deal and spend only five or six years in prison rather than the decades of incarceration he would have faced in a trial. So for those keeping track at home, we're now at over 100 separate crimes Mueller has so far indicted. And it looks like Mueller's just getting started, folks...."

 

3
   Pay no attention... please!

Another sign of the times, as America's standing on the world stage shrinks day by day.

"The foreign policy elite of Europe met this week, and America's representatives were reduced to begging their foreign counterparts to totally ignore tweets coming from the American president. Anxiety about Trump's incoherent approach to world affairs is rising, especially when Trump's Twitter feed is included in the equation. Foreign officials have no idea what to believe from Trump's White House, and are baffled at the disconnect between what his sober policy experts tell the world and what Trump regularly says and tweets. So America's foreign policy experts are now reduced to begging the world to completely ignore their own leader. Not exactly the image we are used to portraying on the world stage, eh?"

 

4
   Victim not impressed by Trump

"I, um... [consults cheat sheet in hand]... feel your pain -- yeah, that's it!"

"Comedians ripped into Trump for bringing to a meeting with school shooting survivors a list of talking points, including one just to listen to them. Seriously. The president had to be warned to listen to the people he had arranged to meet with. An even more devastating review of Trump's inability to sound even slightly empathic came from one of the students who was shot. Here's what she had to say about receiving a call from the president: 'He said he heard that I was a big fan of his, and then he said, "I'm a big fan of yours too." I'm pretty sure he made that up. Talking to the president, I've never been so unimpressed by a person in my life. He didn't make me feel better in the slightest.' Ouch. That's from a Trump supporter, mind you. She went on to say later in the interview that Trump called the shooter a 'sick puppy,' and that Trump said: '"oh boy, oh boy, oh boy," like seven times.' So it looks like Trump's still got a lot to learn about this whole 'empathy with victims' thing, doesn't it?"

 

5
   So who is going to pay for all of this?

Gotta love those free-spending Republicans, eh?

"Republicans, from Trump on down, seem to have latched onto an issue they used to discount as a wacky fringe notion -- that of arming schoolteachers. Trump has even proposed letting up to 20 percent of the nation's teachers carry concealed weapons at schools. So let's see... there are just under four million teachers in the country. This means that over 700,000 will have to be armed. So who is going to pay for all this? First, you've got to train them to know they know what they're doing. That won't be cheap. Then, you've got to buy them guns and ammunition. That's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars right there. Trump has proposed paying them bonuses for the extra duty, so that's also going to add to the total. Then there's the question of school insurance rates, which are quite likely to go way up to cover such things as accidents, guns being stolen by students, and possible collateral damage should a teacher ever fire at a gunman but hit an innocent student instead. None of this will be free -- it all comes at a price. So where, exactly, is all the money to pay for all of this going to come from? Trump and the Republicans are noticeably silent on how such a plan would ever be paid for."

 

6
   Blue wave in the distance

There were two notable items from politics outside the Beltway this week, both of which were good news for Democrats.

"Looking forward to the midterm elections, the Republican Party seems to be sinking further into the ooze, as Missouri's governor was just indicted for blackmailing his mistress with a nude photo he took without her consent. Nothing like the party of family values, right? And in Kentucky, a Democrat won a special state legislative election that had to be held because the Republican in the seat committed suicide days after being accused of sexually molesting a 17-year-old girl in the basement of the church he ran. His wife ran to retake his seat. In a district Trump won by nearly 50 points, the Democrat won this Tuesday by swinging the vote totals a jaw-dropping 86 points from the 2016 election. The blue wave continues, as this was the 37th such race Democrats have now won since Trump got elected. Cowabunga! Surf's up, Democrats!"

 

7
   Trump's ulterior motive?

This is just too good to pass up, even if it is a cheap shot.

"It seems that for all the fulminating Donald Trump is doing about what he calls 'chain migration,' some people very close to him apparently have directly benefited from it. It was revealed that Melania Trump's parents have their own green cards because Melania sponsored them for entry. So Trump's own in-laws are beneficiaries of a program he now wants to end. Boy, with that one, the mother-in-law jokes just write themselves, don't they?"

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

241 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [473] -- Mueller's Busy Week”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Democratic candidates for public office should be proud to run on the Medicare Extra For All plan.

    MedEx :)

  2. [2] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [1]: Wow, that's good. four thumbs up!

    CW: Re Syria (talking point #1). While we've been rightfully mourning the 17 dead students in Florida, residents of the district of Eastern Ghouta, just outside Damascus, have seen 462 people killed, including at least 99 children, victims of an ongoing bombing campaign aimed at an enclave of rebels there. Assad's been pulverizing the area in anticipation of a vote on a UN Security Council sponsored cease fire. The Russians have no qualms about backing Assad's flagrant disregard for civilian lives, and Putin might veto the ceasefire resolution if it looks like it might harm Assad's military aims.

    Just thought I'd bring that up.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    I'm really glad CW covered the MedEx (Kick!) plan - I"d seen a bit about it but it got swallowed up in everything else this week. It IS the Public Option I wanted back when ACA was being put together, but better! And the Repubs have teed up the country to be embrace it - a silver lining to be harvested from all their efforts to deprive Americans of accessible, affordable healthcare.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    If I was a Republican and I wanted to position against Medex I'd say to all the retirees "If you let everybody on Medicare it'll bankrupt it and then nobody will have it."

    I know there is a funding mechanism, but this is about lies and fear, not reality.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    BTW, I am reading an interesting book "The New Geography of Jobs" by Enrico Moretti about the changing nature and locale of employment in the U.S.

    He covers a lot of area, and he stumped up a Steven Pinker fact that I hadn't heard before: If you include what we spend on Medical costs to all the social safety net spending the U.S. is only second to France in % of economy spent.

    Of course because we let the medical industry charge twice as much for worse service than everybody else we still have both worse medical coverage them most of Europe, but are less generous to the needy.

    We let corporate America put its nose in the public spending trough and it really sucks up the welfare.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bob Mueller has had a busy and productive week.

    Well, it's been busy anyways.. :D Productive, insofar as going after President Trump?? Not so much..

    Which is natural, since Mueller has already exonerated President Trump..

    His investigation is intensifying quickly, as it gains speed and moves closer and closer to the inner Trump circle.

    Really?? Facts to support???

    Just a week ago, Mueller's team dropped an indictment on 13 Russians for meddling in the 2016 election

    Yep.. And exonerated President Trump and proved beyond ANY doubt that Russian meddling had NO EFFECT on the outcome of the election..

    We personally cannot ever remember a political movement in our lifetimes that grew so big so fast. People are saying "this feels different," because it does.

    Oh, com'on!! You said the same thing about the Occupy movement...

    This is the latest shiny thing... No more, no less...

    We would have given them this week's "most impressive" award, but the students are not partisan.

    Oh, now THAT is a load of crap.... The students are COMPLETELY partisan and being coached by the Dumbocrat Party and scripted by CNN...

    Not partisan, my left arse cheek!!

    They are instead a single-issue group. There's a lot of overlap between the Democratic Party and gun control advocacy, but we cannot paint the students with a partisan label for their nonpartisan efforts,

    I call bullshit... There efforts are COMPLETELY partisan...

    They are lockstep with the Dumbocrat Party...

    I know ya'all are DESPERATE for a movement..

    But let's try and stick with REALITY, mmm kay? :D

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [1] -

    OK, I gotta admit, that's way better than my suggestions. I like the way it rhymes with FedEx, too! Well done!!

    :-)

    Paula [3] -

    What really caught my eye was the "and vision and dental" part of it. Have no idea why these two are not considered part of mainstream health insurance, but it needs to change!

    Anyway, yeah, I typed the whole thing out and didn't even realize until I was editing that "this is just the public option renamed!" So it almost snuck by me, too.

    neilm [4] -

    Good point, but it could be countered with facts, if the Dems are up to it, that is...

    Michale [6] -

    Which is natural, since Mueller has already exonerated President Trump..

    BWAH Hah hah hah hah!!!

    OK, I gotta admit, I laughed so hard at that, my beer almost came out my nose...

    You claim to be a former LEO. Absence of a prosecutor's accusation is NOT (repeat NOT) evidence of exoneration. That's pretty basic stuff, I would think, for any LEO, even one in the military. You don't show your whole hand before all the bets are in, to put it plainly.

    Mueller is doing what he does best -- circling in to the core of the corruption.

    Maybe that core includes Donald Trump, maybe it doesn't, but it's a long ways from "exoneration," that's for sure.

    Here's an honest question for you: still think Gates is innocent of everything? Hmmm? Even after he pleaded guilty to federal crimes which could put him away for years? Take off your partisan hat and put on your LEO hat for just a moment, would you?

    As for Mueller's indictments, here's a rule of thumb: just because something doesn't get included in an indictment, that doesn't mean a future indictment won't levy that charge. That's not even in the same ballpark as "exoneration," which, as a former LEO, you should fully understand.

    To get back to poker analogies, Mueller is playing his cards very close to his vest. So you (or Trump, or anyone else) claiming you know what he's still holding is laughable, at this point.

    As for that "scripted by CNN" BS, here's the real story:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/02/23/the-scripted-town-hall-question-a-cnn-non-scandal/?utm_term=.5e8205405a6b

    So the guy is complaining because he offered a question, and CNN said "can you put something you yourself said before the question to provide some context?" and the right wingers are claiming that CNN wrote some sort of script for the guy? I mean it was HIS OWN WORDS prefaced by HIS OWN WORDS -- where is the nefarious "scripting"?

    There's some reality for you, big guy.

    :-)

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I gotta admit, I laughed so hard at that, my beer almost came out my nose...

    Kinda early for beer, eh?? :D

    Absence of a prosecutor's accusation is NOT (repeat NOT) evidence of exoneration.

    True, but when an indictment states that NO AMERICANS WERE KNOWINGLY INVOLVED, that is pretty much exoneration..

    Mueller is doing what he does best -- circling in to the core of the corruption.

    And yet, not a SINGLE indictment has touched President Trump or even HINTED at President Trump.. The Russian indictment flat out EXONERATES President Trump..

    And, don't forget, ALSO flat out stated that Russian meddling had NO IMPACT on the outcome of the election...

    Between these two FACTS, you can kiss Trump impeachment goodbye.. :D

    Here's an honest question for you: still think Gates is innocent of everything? Hmmm? Even after he pleaded guilty to federal crimes which could put him away for years? Take off your partisan hat and put on your LEO hat for just a moment, would you?

    Did I ever say Gates was innocent of everything???

    I don't care about Gates or Manafort because NEITHER of them have ANYTHING to do with President Trump or the election..

    And honestly, I am surprised YOU care about them, since they have nothing to do with the election and their charges have NOTHING to do with President Trump.

    THAT is the reality...

    There's some reality for you, big guy.

    Nope.. That's just WaPoop spin...

    The survivor wanted to ask his own question. CNN wanted to script the whole thing and have the survivor ask THEIR question..

    That's the beginning and end of the whole debacle...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    And WHICH Party was it that said

    "We MUST politicize these tragedies"

    and

    "Never let a good crisis go to waste"

    I'll give you a hint..

    It's the Party that wants to ban guns in violation of the 2nd Amendment...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope.. That's just WaPoop spin...

    The survivor wanted to ask his own question. CNN wanted to script the whole thing and have the survivor ask THEIR question..

    That's the beginning and end of the whole debacle...

    But it's sad to see CNN attack a shooting survivor solely because the survivor doesn't want to toe the CNN/Dumbocrat Party line...

    Sad...

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    8

    True, but when an indictment states that NO AMERICANS WERE KNOWINGLY INVOLVED, that is pretty much exoneration..

    If any of the various assorted and multiple indictments (more coming) actually said that, you'd have a point, but not a single one of them does... so you again don't... know matter how many times you choose to repeat it.

    And yet, not a SINGLE indictment has touched President Trump or even HINTED at President Trump..

    Spoken like someone who hasn't read the approximately 100 counts contained in the multiple indictments.

    The Russian indictment flat out EXONERATES President Trump..

    It would be great if the Fox News crowd and their ilk would clue in to the fact that:

    * Repetition of lies does not cause them to magically become a fact.
    * Indictments are to charge people and not to exonerate them.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not all students back gun control, young conservatives say

    Liberty Fuchs, 19, a self-identified libertarian from Los Angeles, said she strongly empathizes with the Florida students, but is afraid their tactics are alienating even those sympathetic to them. She said she’s read statements on social media that equate support for gun rights to sanctioning school shootings.

    “It’s so upsetting to hear them say you’re either for gun control or dead kids,” she said. “I don’t question their motives, of course they want to do something and it’s been so powerful, so strong. But to turn it into an attack on the right wing? It’s like the feeling when you get bullied in high school because you believe in something different.”
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article201868299.html

    Apparently, Dumbocrats don't MIND bullies.... Just as long as THEY are the ones being the bullies...

    Sad.....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    If any of the various assorted and multiple indictments (more coming) actually said that, you'd have a point, but not a single one of them does... so you again don't... know matter how many times you choose to repeat it.

    That's what Mueller's boss says they say...

    You just can't handle the fact that your precious Russian collusion is being thrown on the trash heap of history..

    Spoken like someone who hasn't read the approximately 100 counts contained in the multiple indictments.

    Quote me the relevant parts of the indictments that refer to President Trump and Russian collusion.

    You can't because none exists..

    * Repetition of lies does not cause them to magically become a fact.
    * Indictments are to charge people and not to exonerate them.

    And constant denial of the FACTS and of reality doesn't make it any less factual and doesn't make reality go away..

    You lost.. Get over it already..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    When it comes to the gun issue, there is simply one fact that there is no getting around..

    Americans, like constitutionally guaranteed free speech et al, have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own a gun...

    Until such time as ya'all can repeal the 2nd Amendment and heavily redact the 4th and 1st Amendments....

    Guns are here to stay...

    Get over it.. You lose. AGAIN...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Try enforcing existing gun laws before launching new ones
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/opinion/article201171989.html

    Whatta concept, eh!!

    :^/

  16. [16] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Chris, I really enjoy your "truth to power" commentary.
    However, I realize you are Bernie Sanders supporter, so I don't know how to interpret the lack of even a "Dishonorable Mention" for Mr Sander's comment about the Russian support of his primary campaign. Is it this an intentional oversight?

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, OK... Let's try something new...

    Let's make a deal and compromise..

    Ya'all get a ban on bump stocks, raising the age limit to purchase rifles to 21 and a magazine capacity limitation of 10 rounds...

    In exchange, I get 50-state reciprocity on Carry permits and the creation of mental health databases that are tied in with gun own/carry applications..

    Anyone have a problem with this???

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's make a deal and compromise..

    And one more thing..

    NEVER let the words "assault" rifle cross your lips or your fingers..

    I am just looking out for ya'all... Anyone who uses the term "assault" rifle is announcing to the world that they are a complete and utter moron who is basically saying, "I AM CLUELESS ABOUT FIREARMS"..

    So, seriously.. Don't be stoopid...

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    3

    I'm really glad CW covered the MedEx (Kick!) plan - I'd seen a bit about it but it got swallowed up in everything else this week. It IS the Public Option I wanted back when ACA was being put together, but better!

    Me too. I heard an inkling, but it's clearly on the back burner due to the nonstop Trumpian chaos and/or idiot tweets. This is exactly what they should have done with ACA, but then there was Liebermann and Baucus. :(

    And the Repubs have teed up the country to be embrace it - a silver lining to be harvested from all their efforts to deprive Americans of accessible, affordable healthcare.

    Who knew health care could be so complicated? Everyone but Trump, and he obviously knows he failed miserably at it so he scapegoated McCain yesterday at CPAC:

    “We’re having tremendous plans coming out now, healthcare plans, at a fraction of the cost, that are much better than Obamacare, and except for one senator who came into the room at 3 in the morning and went like that [Trump's toddler size thumb points down], we could have had health care too.”

    "We're having tremendous plans"... What the hell is he talking about, and what kind of moron claims that one senator kills an entire bill all by himself? Pathetic... but even more pathetic if the sheeple are still buying his obvious con artisty bullshit.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump supporter, 76, blames ‘fake news’ CNN for threats following reporter ambush
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/02/23/trump-supporter-76-blames-fake-news-cnn-for-threats-following-reporter-ambush.html

    That looks SOOOOO familiar....

    Remind me again how the Left is so "fair" and "tolerant" and "respectful".. I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS to the contrary..

    This is doubly hypocritical because CNN itself got caught pushing a Russia inspired "protest"??

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    TP-1. It is my understanding that US courts have ruled treason can only be committed in a time of formally declared war. Trump's acts may be treasonous, but don't clear the USA treason bar. Can we settle on "bum?"

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I realize that it is hard to find an impressive Democrat, but I would bet that this is not the first time the award has been given to a health plan proposed when it has no chance of passing.

    This is clearly just a ploy to get people to vote for Democrats in 2018 because then it will, according to theory, be able to be passed. And probably a bit of let's take this issue away from Bernie.

    The most disappointing award was better, but somehow the problem you highlighted of the Democrats being the Washington insiders while they are accusing someone else of the same seems to have been lost by the time you cheer on the Democratic Party for winning the 37 special elections. How many of them are really Big Money Washington insiders?

    While it is possible there are enough Republicans that have molested a 17 year old, it might not be possible to find out about all of them in time for the 2018 elections.

    If you decide to actually concentrate on the problem you highlighted and lost you might try looking for it with the lessons that should have been learned from the 2016 election that there are many citizens that no longer buy the "Good guy with a gun" excuse that the Big Money Democrats use to justify taking Big Money because the Republicans do.

    And those are the citizens the Democrats need to win.

    Give people a reason to support Democrats that will actually not be the bullshit argument that they are not as bad as Republicans so you have to vote for them because they are your only other choice and will hurt you less than Republicans.

    Or you could continue helping the Big Money Democrats try to dig their way out of the hole they have dug themselves into and watch 2016 happen all over again.

  23. [23] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    RE TP 1 - Treason

    " . . indicted last week by Bob Mueller for running a troll farm in Russia which interfered in our elections."

    Minus a definition of "interfered" to include things that would amount to voter fraud , Mueller (and CW) appear to be saying that while we Americans have established and enshrined the right to freedom of speech in our constitution, that we seek to deny that same right to foreigners!!

    I'm have trouble discerning/deciding whether that is actually "treason", or maybe hypocrisy or stupidity!!!

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    As of 8:30 Sat. morning, There are only two mild tweets on the board. I suspect an intern wrote both. :)

  25. [25] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm Your [5]

    " . . we let the medical industry charge twice as much for worse service than everybody else . ."

    Well said! You're obviously functioning as a 'social physician' here yourself, regarding our national health 'illness', but you neglected to 1), diagnose the nature of the disease and 2), prescribe a cure.

    There was no planning whatsoever involved in how we got the system we have. We went into WWII with a health-care system basically operated by churches, charities, etc., with virtually no gov't involvement, and no insurance co. involvement.

    Then along comes the war effort, with an instantaneous transition from unemployment to labor scarcity. At some point, some large defense contractor, desperate for workers but restricted by wage/price controls from offering higher wages, came up with the bright idea of circumventing wage/price controls by offering what came to be know as "fringe benefits", the first one being 'free' medical care. The contractor didn't want to have to create a new internal department to handle that, so they approached some insurance company and essentially hired them to administer the employee health benefits program, and the rest is history.

    Now, we are saddled with a health-care system that was never planned, just evolved by default, and the result is a private enterprise profit-directed system that, because the nature of the service is seen as existential, is free to charge that "twice as much for inferior service" thing you mentioned.

    The solution is to treat health care the way we treat public utilities, meaning that where monopoly obtains, prices must be subject to gov't control. In the case of health care, that basically translates to socialized medicine or 'medicare for all'.

    Unfortunately, the established special interests (doctors, hospitals and insurance companies) will fight that transition with all the money they can find with which to buy congressional votes.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Minus a definition of "interfered" to include things that would amount to voter fraud , Mueller (and CW) appear to be saying that while we Americans have established and enshrined the right to freedom of speech in our constitution, that we seek to deny that same right to foreigners!!

    Seek to deny that right to ANYONE who doesn't toe their line..

    AntiFa anyone???

  27. [27] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Seems mine wasn't the only craw that the misuse of the word 'treason' stuck in...must be the transatlantic in us all that likes a definition to mean defines.

    Mueller has busier weeks to come (or not, if he's fired for doing his job,) his 'RICO' style approach to this endeavor is obvious and indeed the best way to ferret out this/these Trump/collaborators crime(s). I know that this tack on how to manage the brief on investigating Kremlin involvement in the 2016 US elections confuses a few people, it's only natural that it would have both polarised sides of the spectrum leaping to conclusions. The left assume that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and the right assume that with each indictment that doesn't include Trump he's guiltless. Both are wrong. To the left I say; don't expect a Russian-Trump collusion narrative ever to be written by Mueller, his brief is to ferret out crimes and to indict, collusion isn't a crime, it's just un-American...last time I looked, Joseph Raymond McCarthy isn't calling the shots. Besides, when Mueller brilliantly used the the word 'unwitting' he was in fact saying that the Kremlin knew the fools with which they were dealing and built-in the fools own believable deniability on their behalf. The Kremlin leaves nothing to chance, knowing Trump and his hand-picked clods would, given half a chance, covfefe-up a free lunch, they realised it was more important to cover the Trump-clusterfefe than it was their own asses...hence the 13 Russkie indictments. To the Right I say; until Mueller hands his report to the guy who will inevitably shred it, don't assume for a second that your messiah is guiltless in anything other than his own birth. Trump and his dubious business practises should concern you to a degree, it wouldn't be an issue had he the balls to come clean with the American people, shown his tax returns, admitted his dealings with shady players and not groped so many women that only fools ignore the pattern of a lifetime. It doesn't help that Trump is nuttier than Squirrel shit, never a good platform from which to stage a logical argument.

    Just checking my crib-notes...oh yes, Congrats US women's Hockey and Curling fans, let's face it, if miracles can happen on ice they might just happen in Washington. Truck out those gun laws, doing anything is better than doing nothing.

    Keep your stick/broom on the ice.

    LL&P

  28. [28] 
    TheStig wrote:

    neilm-5

    "Of course because we let the medical industry charge twice as much for worse service than everybody else we still have both worse medical coverage them most of Europe, but are less generous to the needy."

    AKA "Welfare for the rich, free enterprise for the poor."

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Truck out those gun laws, doing anything is better than doing nothing.

    Yea???

    OK, let's start trucking out the free speech laws and voting laws..

    "Doing anything is better than doing nothing"

    As long as "anything" furthers the Dumbocrat Party agenda at the expense of Americans and their Constitutional rights...

    :^/

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    What part of GUN OWNERSHIP IS AS MUCH OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AS VOTING OR FREEDOM OF SPEECH continues to elude ya'all???

    Here's the plan..

    For EVERY little WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law you want to use to restrict gun ownership, you have the same comparable restriction imposed on Free Speech.. Or voting..

    Then we'll see how LAW-happy ya'all are...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all get a ban on bump stocks, raising the age limit to purchase rifles to 21 and a magazine capacity limitation of 10 rounds...

    I have just realized that raising the gun purchase age to 21 is unconstitutional...

    An adult cannot be denied his or her constitutional rights without due process..

    Darn that 2nd Amendment....

  32. [32] 
    John M wrote:

    [30] Michale

    "I have just realized that raising the gun purchase age to 21 is unconstitutional...

    An adult cannot be denied his or her constitutional rights without due process.."

    You would be correct if it applied to ALL guns. But it WON'T, so you DON'T have a point.

    There is that OTHER pesky little phrase the Supreme Court uses when deciding constitutionality of laws, whether or not it places an UNDUE BURDEN on the exercise of those rights.

    SEE RESTRICTIONS on the constitutional RIGHT to an ABORTION.

  33. [33] 
    John M wrote:

    [29] Michale

    "For EVERY little WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law you want to use to restrict gun ownership, you have the same comparable restriction imposed on Free Speech.. Or voting..

    Then we'll see how LAW-happy ya'all are..."

    You IGNORE that there ALREADY ARE restrictions on BOTH Free Speech and Voting.

    There are virtually none as yet on firearm ownership.

    So once again, you have no point.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    An adult cannot be denied his or her constitutional rights without due process..

    Darn that 2nd Amendment....

    Where does it say anything about an age limit in the 2nd Amendment?

    We could specify 75 as the lower limit for firearms purchase and it would be constitutional.

    In fact, the limitation is on a "well regulated militia" - do you think the school shooter last week was part of a "well regulated militia"?

    As I've said previously, there are too many guns already out there, plus the 2nd amendment, to handle this with the types of laws that other countries use.

    A gun registry and compulsory 3rd party liability insurance will solve this in a few years as people choose to get rid of guns they don't want to insure, and the insurance companies profit motive let's them adjust the levels of insurance for people they deem high risk, just like we do with autos.

    Plus, the insurance/registration plan is fine under the real 2nd amendment (not the pretend one that allows everybody to own any firearm regardless of any circumstance, which the NRA would like you to think it means).

    If we want to address this issue, the solution is available.

  35. [35] 
    John M wrote:

    Regarding a post from yesterday's column, I think it was important to make this point:

    [130] Balthasar

    "Who's to say that Trump, with the excuse that "crazy democrats" could endanger national security by hamstringing the administration in congressional inquiry, wouldn't right then try to pull a rabbit out of a hat and pardon both himself and his and his entire administration from any wrongdoing, and THEN fire Mueller, claiming that his investigation was, as a result of the pardon, moot?"

    There is just one PROBLEM with that scenario. A sitting President can constitutionally and legally pardon anyone with the EXCEPTION of HIMSELF. The President cannot pardon himself. Trump cannot pardon Trump.

    On the other hand, Trump could allow himself to be impeached and removed from office or resign, have Pence take over as President, and then have Pence pardon Trump, like Ford did with Nixon. That would BE perfectly legal and constitutional.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    You would be correct if it applied to ALL guns. But it WON'T, so you DON'T have a point.

    It WOULD apply to "all guns" because the age for purchasing a handgun is ALREADY at 21...

    You IGNORE that there ALREADY ARE restrictions on BOTH Free Speech and Voting.

    Just as there are already restrictions on gun ownership..

    If you want more gun ownership restrictions, then you get more voting and free speech restrictions..

    It's THAT simple...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I've said previously, there are too many guns already out there, plus the 2nd amendment, to handle this with the types of laws that other countries use.

    A gun registry and compulsory 3rd party liability insurance will solve this in a few years as people choose to get rid of guns they don't want to insure, and the insurance companies profit motive let's them adjust the levels of insurance for people they deem high risk, just like we do with autos.

    Plus, the insurance/registration plan is fine under the real 2nd amendment (not the pretend one that allows everybody to own any firearm regardless of any circumstance, which the NRA would like you to think it means).

    NONE of which would prevent or help prevent CBMSs.. They are SOLELY designed to make gun ownership more onerous and, as such, are unconstitutional...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    We could specify 75 as the lower limit for firearms purchase and it would be constitutional.

    Yea??

    Prove it...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    We could specify 75 as the lower limit for firearms purchase and it would be constitutional.

    We could specify 75 as the lower limit for Free Speech and it would be constitutional..

    We could specify 75 as the lower limit for voting and it would be constitutional..

    You see how moronic that sounds?? :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, one simply fact simply cannot get past ya'all's partisan agenda..

    GUN OWNERSHIP IS AS MUCH OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AS FREE SPEECH OR FREE ASSEMBLY OR ANY OF THE OTHER FREEDOMS GUARANTEED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS

    Say that to yerselves every morning when you wake up and every evening when you go to sleep..

    Maybe it will begin to sink in...

  41. [41] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    nielm...what wonderful, sober suggestions to feral gun ownership. I would go a few logical steps further and introduce lifetime bans for felons, lifetime bans on authorised gun dealers who sell a gun without background checks, and making private sales subject to background checks through a state or federal non-partisan agency.
    American jurisprudence says that the moment you squeeze the trigger on a gun, you own the outcome legally (intent follows the bullet,) making the same law apply to gun sales will make the willy-nilliness of gun distribution commit to an adult-like self governance.
    The last thing I would do is, make it compulsory that people who think Democrats are out to repeal the 2nd amendment should spend two weeks learning the constitution and stop with the fear-mongering. If they fail that test, they get a good slap for being stupid and opining on a subject about which they know nothing.

    Leafs ftw tonight.

    LL&P (hopefully)

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    The last thing I would do is, make it compulsory that people who think Democrats are out to repeal the 2nd amendment should spend two weeks learning the constitution and stop with the fear-mongering.

    Dumbocrats *ARE* out to repeal the 2nd Amendment..

    This is well documented....

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    If they fail that test, they get a good slap for being stupid and opining on a subject about which they know nothing.

    You mean, like ya'all thinking ya'all can restrict gun ownership up the wazoo with NO blowback on other Bill Of Rights freedom???

    You mean like THAT ignorance???

  44. [44] 
    John M wrote:

    [42] Michale

    "You mean, like ya'all thinking ya'all can restrict gun ownership up the wazoo with NO blowback on other Bill Of Rights freedom???

    You mean like THAT ignorance???"

    NOT RESTRICT, but REGULATE, which the Supreme Court has already said is legal and constitutional regarding other rights, like free speech, assembly etc. UP TO A POINT.

  45. [45] 
    John M wrote:

    An interesting twist on [34], there would be nothing preventing Trump from running for another term as President again after Pence finished out his term, and after Pence pardoned Trump. We already have the Roy Moore example from Alabama, who got on the state Supreme Court a second time after being removed from the bench.

  46. [46] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    @ Michale, aka Russian Bot FN69, by well documented you mean falsely reported on by FOX news. I understand you're disabled by reality and realise that you and the facts pretty much took your own separate path when trump took office, but you need to know that, because you say a thing over and over doesn't make it true. It works for Trump because he's older and more adept at self-denial, but you have start getting used to the idea that you're wrong, there is no left-wing conspiracy and that some cold water and a slap couldn't hurt reality deniers.

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    John M [44]: Sort of like Putin did it, then.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    @ Michale, aka Russian Bot FN69, by well documented you mean falsely reported on by FOX news.

    No, I mean NY GRIME

    CW himself even mentioned..

    Why be such a dick??

    Yer wrong.. Admit it and move on...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    NOT RESTRICT, but REGULATE, which the Supreme Court has already said is legal and constitutional regarding other rights, like free speech, assembly etc. UP TO A POINT.

    And THAT point has been reached...

    THAT's what you don't get...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't have a SINGLE solitary law that will pass 2nd Amendment muster and will actually have an effect on the problem..

    Do you agree with Neil that setting the min age for gun purchase at 75 is perfectly constitutional??

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all are CONSTANTLY accusing the GOP of trying to restrict voting laws in violation of the US Constitution..

    Yet, ya'all are doing the *EXACT SAME THING* with regards to ANOTHER Constitutional right...

    And if there was anyone left here who actually RESIDED in reality and wasn't suffering from HHPTDS, they would acknowledge this reality...

  52. [52] 
    James T Canuck wrote:
  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The White House has finally released the Schiff Memo, which, a few news cycles back, was the refutation of the Nunes Memo. Late Saturday afternoon, when everyone's paying attention.

    Still reading...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Redacting or restricting? Michale...

    Tomatoe, Potatoe..

    Ya'all are advocating the EXACT same thing you attack the GOP for..

  55. [55] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Read the Schiff memo. Full of facts that have, remember, been run past the DOJ and FBI, and been radacted by lawyers in the White House. Ready?

    Okay, first of all, is says what everyone expects it to say: Nunes is full of shit. The Steele memo wasn't a basis for any of it - the investigation by the FBI or the later FISA surveillance warrants, and arrives too late in the game. It use in later warrants is limited to Steele's description of a meeting that Page had with Russians with intelligence connections.

    As to how that memo was described to the Court, Schiff quotes directly from DOJ's warrant application, which describes that Steele:

    "was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 [Steele] that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long-standing business relationship.) The identiied U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

    "U.S. person" being, we now know Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS, who told the House intelligence committee essentially this same story almost a year later.

    In other words there's no validity to Republican claims that the FISA Warrants were based on the Steele Memos or that the 'dossier' was used as a basis for the FBI's counterintelligence investigation of Page. That's all just more GOP covfefe.

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oops, I should have included a link to the pdf so that you could all read it for yourselves:

    http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf

  57. [57] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Michale, parse the document all you want...it has been stipulated to by President Trump...I'm convinced now that Trump is either being read to at night like a child, or can't read and understand things written. I see no clear evidence in either memo that clears Trump and his gang of untoward behaviour. In fact, it reinforces the fact that Trump has mind-numbingly bad instincts where people are concerned. It also exonerates Sally Yates for the real reason she was dismissed, not the one that flew in the face of decency. I mention that as a footnote, just to keep up my focus on facts and not partisan bootstrapping.

    LL&P in reality.

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare, a blog that analyzes legal issues, said Mr. Mueller’s actions could be seen as building a pyramid — establishing that there was a Russian influence campaign and assembling a group of cooperating witnesses. But the special counsel has not tipped his hand yet.

    “The basic contours of the puzzle is that he’s constructed his actions in a way that we don’t know where it’s leading,” he said, “and that’s on purpose.”

    Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/us/politics/trump-russia-inquiry-mueller.html

    Nobody but Mueller and his team know what is going to happen.

    Patience. The truth will come out.

    Ongoing investigations (based on indictments so far):

    1. Russian manipulation of the election process
    2. Money laundering by key players in the administration
    3. Lying to the FBI (a catch all to net informants)

    No sign so far:
    1. Americans involved in conspiracy with Russia
    2. Obstruction of justice by White House

    Anybody who reads the "no signs so far" as "exoneration" or "inevitable" is getting way ahead of the story. Who knows what Mueller has the evidence to prosecute.

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    And, of course, I forgot to close the italics before the "Source".

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You should always use the preview button, Neil.

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, coming from me, that was pretty funny.

  62. [62] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Good God, I see a couple of people have not paid attention to the FDA warning on Foxiganda.

    "Consuming Foxiganda may lead to sever cases of Brietbutt and cause severe Infoshitting. You may also suffer from episodes of Daily Cater Walling. Other side effects may be, severe short of breath when reading the Hill and a bad case of American Stinker. If you suffer any of these side effect immediately contact a real doctor not associated with places like Discus or Russian trolls."

  63. [63] 
    Paula wrote:

    [61] Good one!

    In other news, I just read on Twitter - so I don't know if this is true but would like to find out - a person claimed that Bernie Sanders set up "Our Revolution" as a 501-C4, which enables him to accept unlimited donations without revealing the donors.

    "Our Revolution" just endorsed Dennis Kucinich for Gov here in Ohio -- I think ol' Denny is a chump and hope his campaign fizzles fast. He's very much like Bernie in that he talks a lot; says things I like the sound of, and gets absolutely nothing done. Separately he goes on FOX to diss Dems. EVERY other candidate in the primary is better than Kucinich including those who have already dropped out.

    But if "Our Rev" is getting dark money - grrrr. So much for Bernie's vaunted purity.

  64. [64] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Hey Paula [62]: Bernie Sanders' {BS'} inability to accept that Russian bots helped him too says a lot about how useless a human being he is. Forget "vaunted purity" and let's just go with POS.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    JT,

    Michale, parse the document all you want...it has been stipulated to by President Trump...I'm convinced now that Trump is either being read to at night like a child, or can't read and understand things written.

    Of course, we have your hysterical bigoted opinion...

    And then we have the *FACT* that President Trump was and is a VERY successful businessman..

    We have the *FACT* that President Trump beat 19 very well qualified, very well funded and very well experienced politicos..

    AND we have the **FACT** that President Trump DEVASTATED the meanest, biggest, richest and most experienced political juggernaut in the history of the planet...

    So, we have your hysterical and bigoted opinion...

    And then we have the FACTS that totally decimate your bigoted and hysterical opinion..

    Oh gee... Which should we trust..

    Around here, it USED to be we trusted the facts...

    But since the onset of HHPTDS, all ya'all trust is the bigoted and hysterical opinions...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nobody but Mueller and his team know what is going to happen.

    Patience. The truth will come out.

    Sounds like yer getting worried, Neil. :D

    Of course, all you care about is "truth".. YOUR truth...

    The *FACT* is that Mueller has already exonerated President Trump..

    The *FACT* is that Mueller has explicitly stated nothing the Russians did affected the outcome of the election in ANY way..

    It's over.. You lost..

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Obviously inadvertent, I am sure...

    But you missed a comment.. Let me repeat it for you because I am *SURE* you want to address it...

    We could specify 75 as the lower limit for firearms purchase and it would be constitutional.

    We could specify 75 as the lower limit for Free Speech and it would be constitutional..

    We could specify 75 as the lower limit for voting and it would be constitutional..

    You see how moronic that sounds?? :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    JT,

    American jurisprudence says that the moment you squeeze the trigger on a gun, you own the outcome legally (intent follows the bullet,) making the same law apply to gun sales will make the willy-nilliness of gun distribution commit to an adult-like self governance.

    Then, of course, you advocate that anyone who sells alcohol is responsible for when someone drives drunk and kills someone...

    Why stop there?? The person who MAKES the alcohol is ALSO responsible....

    All because of your hysterical anti-gun agenda...

    Once again, I implore you to face the facts and face reality..

    There are no laws that will prevent or help prevent CBMSs and are allowed under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment..

    You want to impose anti-gun laws??

    Repeal the 2nd Amendment...

    It really is THAT simple...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Woops!!!

    California Democratic Party declines to endorse Dianne Feinstein in re-election bid
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/25/california-democratic-party-declines-to-endorse-dianne-feinstein-in-re-election-bid/

    Di Fi is toast!!! :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    CALIFORNIA MAYOR WARNS CRIMINALS OF IMPENDING LEO RAIDS, PUTTING COPS' LIVES IN DANGER
    http://kron4.com/2018/02/24/oakland-mayor-mayor-libby-schaaf-warns-residents-of-possible-ice-raids/

    Yea, THAT's the ticket.. Let's have dead cops at the hands of a Dumbocrat mayor...

    The People's Republic is soon to be a reality...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I know that Oakland is a city of law-abiding immigrants and families who deserve to live free from the constant threat of arrest and deportation.

    I believe it is my duty and moral obligation as Mayor to give those families fair warning when that threat appears imminent."
    -Scumbag Oakland Mayor

    If the immigrants are law-abiding, then why should they have to be warned about a Law Enforcement presence??

    "If you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched and your orders are always followed. Why would his life be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

  72. [72] 
    John M wrote:

    [64] Michale

    "And then we have the *FACT* that President Trump was and is a VERY successful businessman.."

    Assumes FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. Especially given:

    1) His daddy had to bail him out with money

    2) His multiple serial bankrupticies

    3) Only one bank, Deutsche Bank, will loan him any money

    4) His ties to Russian oligarchs and shady practices

  73. [73] 
    John M wrote:

    [65] Michale

    "The *FACT* is that Mueller has already exonerated President Trump.."

    NOT TRUE. No such thing has happened. The absence of a charge as of yet, pending a final report, is NOT evidence of exoneration. And no matter how many times you keep repeating that, does not make it any more true.

  74. [74] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M Your [72]

    Yeah, that's technically true, but it IS a pretty strong hint! But hang onto that straw, perhaps it WILL keep you from sinking beneath the waves, bit straws have a notoriously poor long-term record.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    You make some good and valid points, JM...

    ) His multiple serial bankrupticies

    But, if we used your reasoning, then we would have NO CHOICE but to conclude Michael Jordan is the WORST basketball player ever...

    Is THAT what you are claiming??? :D

    Irregardless of that, the simple fact is Donald Trump's business acumen was HONORED by Democrats time and time again..

    When Trump had a -D after his name...

    There are PLENTY of *FACTS* in evidence that PROVES Donald Trump's business chops..

    You just don't acknowledge the facts because they conflict with your ideology...

    NOT TRUE. No such thing has happened.

    "NO AMERICANS WERE KNOWINGLY INVOLVED WITH RUSSIAN MEDDLING"
    -Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein

    Facts are facts, JM....

    It's entirely possible we will learn more..

    But the head guy has exonerated ALL Americans..

    Even Michael Moore and CNN are innocent of collusion :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are PLENTY of *FACTS* in evidence that PROVES Donald Trump's business chops..

    You just don't acknowledge the facts because they conflict with your ideology...

    Even if I give you #1....

    What aboutr #2 and #3??

    If Donald Trump is the 2nd worst example of humanity in the world, that follows that ya'all nominated *THE* worst example of humanity in the world...

    I mean, look at it.. Ya'all nominate the *ONLY* person that could LOSE to Donald Trump...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, if we were in Weigantia Pre-PROW....

    But, if we used your reasoning, then we would have NO CHOICE but to conclude Michael Jordan is the WORST basketball player ever...

    .... the response would be, "That's a very good point, Michale....." :D

    I miss those days... :^/

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Every indictment of an American has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the 2016 or the election or of collusion to meddle in the election..

    As such, each and every indictment of an American is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the issue of Russian Collusion in the 2016 election.. Which is what Mueller is investigating..

    So, as of this moment, ALL Americans are completely exonerated in the charge of collusion..

    And *EVERYONE* involved is completely exonerated in altering the outcome of the 2016 election..

    As of this moment, in the here and now, THESE are the facts...

  79. [79] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula (62)-

    I would agree that Bernie is not as pure as the 27 dollar contribution spin would have people believe.

    Can I also get a grrrr to the establishment Democrats that take the Big Money contributions? There is no if about that.

    Bernie has also endorsed Randy Bryce, a Big Money Democratic establishment candidate.

  80. [80] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speak (63)-
    Your comment says nothing about Bernie.

    Bernie was not involved with whatever the Russians did.

    Anything the Russians were able to accomplish was made possible by the CMPs that set up the system so they could manipulate it.

    Crocodile tears over the Russians interfering with the CMPs manipulation is plain old pitiful as well as plain old stupid (if that's what you were going for with POS).

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    BLUE EATS BLUE
    https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/664456?unlock=HNAXU87NB4SPI0LR

    Gonna be awful hard for the Dems to take the House :D

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [77]:

    LOL, squeaky bum time for Michale. How about you repost in BOLD ALL CAPS and really convince yourself Michale ;)

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    LOL, squeaky bum time for Michale. How about you repost in BOLD ALL CAPS and really convince yourself Michale ;)

    Any FACTS to refute the facts???

    No?? Of course not.. :D

    No wonder you are getting so nervous your cautioning "Patience"...

    It's been a year and ya'all got NOTHING but anti-gun hysteria :D

  84. [84] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Getting help from Commies to defeat a Democrat has absolutely GOT TO BE ILLEGAL, or if not illegal, at least immoral or fattening, as the old saying used to go! Because if it ain't, we Dems/Libs are all going to self destruct, right?

  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:

    Any FACTS to refute the facts???

    Bold and ALL CAPS Michale if you want to convince yourself that absence to date means absence forever.

    This is a bit like calling the score at half time in a football game a "fact".

    Patience. Maybe you'll get to put words in all of our mouths in the end. Or maybe not. Sure as hell if Mueller concludes 45 is not involved you will be claiming that you "won" because we were saying that there definitely was collusion (hint: again for the record, nobody knows until Mueller or his successor publishes the results of the investigation, but it sure is fun watching you squirm).

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    Because if it ain't, we Dems/Libs are all going to self destruct, right?

    No. But we are enjoying laughing at a Republican investigating another Republican and getting crapped on for it.

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    Getting help from Commies to defeat a Democrat has absolutely GOT TO BE ILLEGAL

    Even tho' he claims not to get cable, CRS sure sounds like he can parrot the Fox News positioning statements.

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's been a year and ya'all got NOTHING but anti-gun hysteria :D

    I dunno, you might want to check with Flynn (charged and pled guilty), Papadopoulos (charged and pled guilty), and Gates (charged and pled guilty) and see if they think Mueller has got nothing.

    Man you really have a bad case of squeaky bum time. Your problem with my recommendation of "patience" is that it is killing you that we are laughing and eating popcorn while 45 and yourself are going wild convincing yourself that nothing is going to come out of the investigation.

    CRS is catching the fear too now. This only gets better.

    Remember, if you really need to convince yourself you know the future BOLD ALL CAPS</b is the only way to go!

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bold and ALL CAPS Michale if you want to convince yourself that absence to date means absence forever.

    I don't need to convince myself..

    Rod Rosenstein stated it explicitely..

    Sure, you can continue to believe in fairy tales and unicorns.. I understand..

  90. [90] 
    neilm wrote:

    I don't need to convince myself..

    Rod Rosenstein stated it explicitely..

    Rosenstein basically said the equivalent of "we ran a play and didn't score a touchdown" - it is now only 2nd and 10 - or maybe 2nd and inches, who knows. And it isn't even the equivalent of the end of the drive, let alone the final score.

    Man you are desperate. Patience. We'll find out when the investigation concludes and since Mueller is running a tight ship, currently there is only wild speculation about what he knows and what he can prove.

  91. [91] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I've been telling all you Dems/Libs for more than a year that getting dirt on your opponent, getting moral support or whatever, from Ruskies is NOT illegal, even if you're 100% guilty as sin, and you've all been responding to the effect that if we can somehow come up with a sufficiently sinister-sounding name to apply to it, that it will simply HAVE TO BE illegal.

    I'm guessing it is neilm who is finally (and belatedly) "catching the fear", or more likely, just 'catching on' to reality??

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting help from Commies to defeat a Democrat has absolutely GOT TO BE ILLEGAL, or if not illegal, at least immoral or fattening, as the old saying used to go! Because if it ain't, we Dems/Libs are all going to self destruct, right?

    It ain't...

    "Computer. Initiate Self Destruct.
    Code zero zero zero. Destruct. Zero."

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    I dunno, you might want to check with Flynn (charged and pled guilty), Papadopoulos (charged and pled guilty), and Gates (charged and pled guilty) and see if they think Mueller has got nothing.

    NOTHING to do with Trump or Russian Collusion..

    Rod Rosenstein himself said that NO Americans knowingly colluded with the Russians.. :D

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man you are desperate. Patience.

    Says the guy who is HYSTERICAL about "patience"...

    :D

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    I've been telling all you Dems/Libs for more than a year that getting dirt on your opponent, getting moral support or whatever, from Ruskies is NOT illegal

    And we've been repeatedly telling you that nobody disagrees with that specific statement.

    But we've been telling you that accepting stolen goods is illegal, and that is what is being investigated.

    And we've been telling you that colluding with somebody, of any nationality, to break the law is conspiracy. Which is also being investigated.

    And trying to cover up after the fact by lying about the intent of e.g. meetings is called "obstruction of justice" if there was a conspiracy. Which, yet again, is being investigated.

    Patience, we'll find out when Mueller is finished. Until then nobody knows - which is why they are being investigated.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I get it Neal..

    Your desperate to try and change the subject from your totally boneheaded claim We could specify 75 as the lower limit for firearms purchase and it would be constitutional.....

    I mean, I know you just like to push buttons, but at LEAST try to stay in the realm of reality..

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    But we've been telling you that accepting stolen goods is illegal, and that is what is being investigated.

    Pentagon Papers..... 'nuff said...

    And we've been telling you that colluding with somebody, of any nationality, to break the law is conspiracy. Which is also being investigated.

    If colluding is not against the law then a conspiracy to collude is not illegal either...

    Patience, we'll find out when Mueller is finished. Until then nobody knows - which is why they are being investigated.

    https://pics.me.me/cn-update-we-shouldsee-evidence-of-trump-the-year-2038-30350577.png

    It's a joke.. Nothing more...

  98. [98] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    It just hits me, why your hopes of delegitimizing the Trump admin. are all being dashed and your efforts coming to naught - After only 'conspiring' and 'colluding', you've run out of sinister words to apply to 'getting dirt on Hillary'.

    Don't give up yet! You haven't even tried 'plotting', 'scheming', 'conniving', 'intriguing', 'cheating', 'confounding' or 'conphuqueing'!! There's still hope!!!

  99. [99] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm Your [94]

    "Stolen Goods" defined as 'hacked emails', I presume?? You need to go heavy on the "stolen", 'cause the "goods" part is more than a little shaky.

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Stolen Goods" defined as 'hacked emails', I presume?? You need to go heavy on the "stolen", 'cause the "goods" part is more than a little shaky.

    Especially since it's all but proven that the DNC emails "hack" was an inside job by an insider with a thumb drive..

    No wonder the DNC didn't want the FBI to examine the server...

    It just hits me, why your hopes of delegitimizing the Trump admin. are all being dashed and your efforts coming to naught - After only 'conspiring' and 'colluding', you've run out of sinister words to apply to 'getting dirt on Hillary'.

    Don't give up yet! You haven't even tried 'plotting', 'scheming', 'conniving', 'intriguing', 'cheating', 'confounding' or 'conphuqueing'!! There's still hope!!!

    DOGS AND CATS!!! LIVING TOGETHER!!! MASS HYSTERIA!!!
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Especially since it's all but proven that the DNC emails "hack" was an inside job by an insider with a thumb drive..

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    You need to lower your intake of fake news, Michale, or you'll end up with a serious case of 'redhead'.

    No, seriously, if you and Stucki there think that the former head of the FBI and a dream team of prosecutors are sitting there spinning their wheels, you're entitled to do so, but don't say later that we didn't warn you that they were serious.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    You need to lower your intake of fake news, Michale, or you'll end up with a serious case of 'redhead'.

    Any facts to support it wasn't???

    Cuz I have facts to support it was...

    Put up or shut up.. :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yer problem, Balthy is that your definition of "Fake News" is any news that doesn't support your Party slavery...

    It's a self-fulfilling delusion...

  104. [104] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well I know that the White House tried to minimize the impact of the Schiff Memo by releasing it late on a Saturday afternoon, but I really thought that it would have more legs here, given that it refutes every assertion in the Nunes memo.

    Then again, the consensus here (M and CR excluded) was that the Nunes Memo pretty much contradicted itself, so further proof that it was bogus wasn't really needed.

    But it's worth pointing out the duplicity of the Intelligence committee Republicans, who were wanting to refer Glenn Simpson (of GPS) and Steele for prosecution prior to the release (by Feinstein) of Simpson's testimony. Turns out that the FBI provided the FISA court with essentially the same facts more than a year ago. Grassley, Nunes and Gowdy knew that even before Simpson testified, so were straight up lying both about Simpson's testimony and about the FISA warrants. They reckoned, I guess, that if they could keep the source material secret, they could make hay out of these straw men before the public learned the truth. That's as cynical a defense as I've ever seen.

  105. [105] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Any facts to support it wasn't?

    I'll save the presentation of evidence for the Trial of Donald Trump, but will suffice to note that, in addition to professional forensic teams hired by the DNC to uncover the source of the hacks, the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies (all now headed by Bush appointees) have confirmed under oath that their organizations also believe that the hacks were done by Russians.

    Maybe Neil's right, and you're so desperate for good news on this front that you're circling back to try to discredit information that's already been corroborated.

    So which Fox News moron is saying that it was a guy with a thumbdrive that did it, or did that come from Alex Jones?

  106. [106] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oops. Meant to say "all now headed by Trump appointees".

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well I know that the White House tried to minimize the impact of the Schiff Memo by releasing it late on a Saturday afternoon,

    Yea, and Odumbo did the same thing with reports HE wanted to minimize..

    Once again, you attack Trump for things that you give Odumbo a pass on..

    Therefore, your credibility suffers...

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oops. Meant to say "all now headed by Trump appointees".

    ANd before that. They were all headed by ODUMBO appointees...

    DUH......

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any facts to support it wasn't?

    I'll save the presentation of evidence for the Trial of Donald Trump,

    In other words, no you don't have any facts to support your claims..

    Why would the DNC refuse the FBI forensic access to the server that was allegedly "hacked"??

    Because it wasn't hacked...

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    (all now headed by Bush appointees)

    Nancy Pelosi, is that you!?? :D

  111. [111] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I still don't get the angst coming from the right-wing about this whole process.The investigation was inaugurated by The deputy DOJ, (REP.) Run by Mueller, (REP) The four Judges of FISC were appointed by Reagan, Bush' 41 and 43 and if that wasn't enough 'on-paper' skew to the GOP, they hold the WH and Congress. For so much control over this entire process, I see more complaining, 'alternate-facting' and unease from Republicans than I do from Democrats. The right won't get a better shake at this than the one they're getting, one would think they'd welcome a thorough investigation while they hold all the cards. I suspect everyone wants the whole process wrapped up before the midterms? if everything is on the up and up, it can only help the GOP...if it turns out the electorate find the conclusions unpalatable, Trump will be for the high-jump. History and political trends, gerrymandering notwithstanding, have shown that midterms after general elections tend to go against the party in power...

    Patience is a small price to pay for knowing for sure, one way or another, where all this smoke is coming from.

    Leafs won, another correct call from Nostrajamus.

    LL&P

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    I still don't get the angst coming from the right-wing about this whole process.The investigation was inaugurated by The deputy DOJ, (REP.) Run by Mueller, (REP)

    NeverTrumpers...

    What's not to get???

    Or are you being intentionally obtuse??

  113. [113] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    James T Canuck [110]: I know! It's as if the refs were all wearing Leafs jerseys and you still heard the Leafs complain!

    (Sorry about comparing Leafs to Republicants.)

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    How hysterically moronic are Dumbocrats about being anti-gun??

    Math symbol flagged as gun sign sparks police investigation in Louisiana
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/25/math-symbol-flagged-as-gun-sign-sparks-police-investigation-in-louisiana.html

    Com'on people...

    THINK before you strike....

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, of course, there is the oldie but goodie..

    Student Suspended For Pop-Tart Gun, Josh Welch, Files Appeal With Maryland County School System
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/student-suspended-for-pop-tart-gun_n_2903500.html

    I guess expecting reason, logic and common sense from hysterical Dumbocrats is simply a bridge too far...

  116. [116] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    ''NeverTrumpers...

    What's not to get???

    Or are you being intentionally obtuse??''

    Well that explains none of the histrionics I see on a daily basis from the right-wing. Holding your breath or tying yourself to a tree must be phase 'nth' in this little saga of the righteously aghast. Michale, simply playing pass the parcel with your retorts wears thinner by the week, this 'never mind him, what about her' sanctuary of dried up and failed talking points into which you retreat just paints you into the corner of gainsaying. I keep expecting John Cleese to leap out from behind a box of indictments to query me as to the length of my argument and the details of payment.

    [Yes it is...no it isn't,] *cut and paste at your leisure.

    Balthasar, I'm always open to gentle ribbings at the expense of the Leafs, if 50 years without Stanley's mug has taught us anything, it's that you can't sweat the small stuff.

    LL&P

  117. [117] 
    Paula wrote:

    [115] James: The righties are hysterical because their leaders are both hysterical and obstructive. The borg units repeat whatever they're told without any critical analysis, but their leaders know perfectly well that Blotus is guilty of a slew of bad acts, acts they would never have tolerated from a Dem. Furthermore, top GOP folks may themselves be entangled in bad acts by getting money laundered through Russia. The NRA is being investigated for this now and there's been various stories about Russian $ going to/through the RNC as well. How much did who know and when?

    Then there's the "we think tRump and Rohrbacher are getting paid by Russians" conversation in which Ryan said "don't tell anyone!" AND there's McConnell blockading Obama from going public with what they knew about Russian interference before the election.

    Repubs have sat on their collective asses for over a year now refusing to do anything about Russian interference, pretending it didn't happen, and attempting to obstruct investigations into Blotus.

    They're hysterical because they're guilty of active crimes/misdemeanors AND dereliction of duty by letting Blotus run a corrupt and incompetent administration.

    And they don't want Americans to know just how complicit they are and have been so they've been using their media machine to defend/deny/redirect/obstruct, and their hench-idiots go online and pass along their nonsense.

    They have ZERO desire for Mueller to actually find everything out and make it public because none of it will reflect well on them.

  118. [118] 
    Paula wrote:

    [103] Balthasar: Yes Schiff's memo refutes all of Nunes' B.S. but yes, too, we knew it would. Anyone paying attention and capable of thought knew Nunes' stuff was ludicrous, but would nevertheless be swallowed by his base. His base will ignore Schiff's rebuttal because they are borg units but for the rest of us, Schiff's info isn't a surprise.

  119. [119] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    The thing that the Schiff memo has, is tons of footnotes.

    The Nunes memo also had footnotes...oh wait a second, a footnote regarding the declassification process.

    Let the FOIA wars begin.

  120. [120] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [98] - You are getting a bit desperate - not a crime because you can't steal emails? Sad.

    Here is the pertinent law:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

    Check (a) (2) (C)

  121. [121] 
    neilm wrote:

    Then again, the consensus here (M and CR excluded) was that the Nunes Memo pretty much contradicted itself, so further proof that it was bogus wasn't really needed.

    Yup - it was only the hysterical right wingers who got excited by the Nunes "memo" - it was an obvious piece of partisan nonsense designed for an echo chamber and consumed by the desperately gullible.

  122. [122] 
    neilm wrote:

    A 1968 federal law already bars the sale of handguns to anyone under 21 by licensed dealers. And a conservative-leaning Supreme Court has let the age limit stand unmolested despite appeals by the National Rifle Association to eradicate the law.

    So we can put an age limit in of 21. How about 22? 25? 50? 75?

    There are obvious political obstacles, but so far no legal obstacles.

  123. [123] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re [120] - to be fair, I only remember Michale wetting his diaper over the Nunes memo - I think CRS saw it as the sad joke it was.

  124. [124] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Never did I say you can't steal emails. Pretty sure what I said was, not many rational folks would include emails under the definition of "goods".

    But then, I've never heard you accused of being rational, so there you go!

  125. [125] 
    neilm wrote:

    Pretty sure what I said was, not many rational folks would include emails under the definition of "goods".

    Sad.

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    34, 44

    On the other hand, Trump could allow himself to be impeached and removed from office or resign, have Pence take over as President, and then have Pence pardon Trump, like Ford did with Nixon. That would BE perfectly legal and constitutional.

    Question: What do you mean by "allow himself to be impeached"? How would a president go about allowing himself to be impeached? :)

    An interesting twist on [34], there would be nothing preventing Trump from running for another term as President again after Pence finished out his term, and after Pence pardoned Trump.

    While technically factual, remember that Pence was a member of the presidential transition team and privy to information about Flynn et alia and thus places him in as much potential legal jeopardy as every other player involved in the Trump Campaign.

    Add to that, were Trump to receive a presidential pardon for federal crimes, it would constitute an admission of guilt of the many offenses that are also crimes under the laws of the State of New York and would likely put him in prison for the rest of his life and not likely to run for the presidency. So there's that. :)

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    49

    You don't have a SINGLE solitary law that will pass 2nd Amendment muster and will actually have an effect on the problem..

    Your opinion.

    Do you agree with Neil that setting the min age for gun purchase at 75 is perfectly constitutional??

    I do not think the Supreme Court would find that constitutional in the least. I may have found something on which I agree with Michale, but I did have a few drinks today, so there's that. :)

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    50

    Ya'all are CONSTANTLY accusing the GOP of trying to restrict voting laws in violation of the US Constitution..

    Yet, ya'all are doing the *EXACT SAME THING* with regards to ANOTHER Constitutional right...

    If the Constitution guaranteed the right of an 18-year-old to carry an AR-15, you'd have a point, but it doesn't... so you don't, ad nauseam.

    Each right in the Constitution is subject to regulation and/or amendment, but there is no guarantee in the Constitution that rights must be equally regulated like you keep whining about in your never ending game of false equivalency. Lawmakers can obviously choose to put limits on one right without imposing limits on another. :)

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    GT
    61

    I'm stealing this. Lock me up! ;)

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    JT

    Well that explains none of the histrionics I see on a daily basis from the right-wing. Holding your breath or tying yourself to a tree must be phase 'nth' in this little saga of the righteously aghast.

    Hate to break it to ya, but you just described all the histrionics from the LEFT wing and you hysterical NeverTrumpers.. :D

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    So we can put an age limit in of 21. How about 22? 25? 50? 75?

    There are obvious political obstacles, but so far no legal obstacles.

    Fine.. Then there are no legal obstacles to put the voting age at 75.. Or the right to free speech at 75...

    Is THAT what you are really saying??

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't have a SINGLE solitary law that will pass 2nd Amendment muster and will actually have an effect on the problem..

    Your opinion.

    No.. FACT....

    I do not think the Supreme Court would find that constitutional in the least. :)

    Fine. Then explain it to Neil.. Oh that's right. You only correct those who you find ideologically "unpure".. :D

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    77

    Every indictment of an American has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the 2016 or the election or of collusion to meddle in the election..

    You cannot factually say that people involved in the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the election, and doing so repeatedly would constitute proof of nothing beyond one's obvious ignorance and/or lack of critical thinking skills. :)

    So, as of this moment, ALL Americans are completely exonerated in the charge of collusion..

    Incorrect. Lack of a charge or indictment does not in any way constitute exoneration of a crime. Indeed, one must first be charged with "high crimes and/or misdemeanors" before one can be pardoned and/or exonerated of those crimes. While no one may have been as yet charged; no one has been as yet exonerated either.

    It's also possible there are sealed indictments that have charged Americans of which you have no knowledge. Hint: ^^^ Fact ^^^

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno... If ya'all REALLY want to stop the increase of gun ownership..

    Florida Gun Show sees 'record number' of attendees despite gun control debate
    The manager for the Florida Gun Show, George Fernandez, says they've never seen such a big crowd.

    http://www.wtsp.com/article/news/local/florida-gun-show-sees-record-number-of-attendees-despite-gun-control-debate/67-523267641

    Maybe ya'all should shut up about it and quit being so hysterical...

    It's a fact that every time the hysterical Left Wing gets all hysterical about banning guns, purchases of guns shoots through the roof...

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Activists Warn Illegals Not to Travel in Florida as Immigration Arrests Mount

    As arrests of illegal immigrants increase due to actions taken by President Donald Trump to enforce laws greatly ignored by Barack Obama, civil rights activists in Florida are issuing travel warnings and tips on how to avoid law enforcement.
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/activists-warn-illegals-not-travel-florida-immigration-arrests-mount/

    Once again, we see criminals aiding criminals.. :^/

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    You cannot factually say that people involved in the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the election,

    But the "crimes" they are being charged for occurred long before they had any connection to the Trump campaign..

    Ya'all said it yerselves...These are just ways to put the screws to the people..

    Incorrect. Lack of a charge or indictment does not in any way constitute exoneration of a crime.

    It sure as hell does..

    Or maybe you have never heard of the INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY thingy...

    If you want to replace exonerate with innocent, fine..

    To date, ALL Americans are COMPLETELY INNOCENT of knowingly colluding with the Russians...

    Happy??

    It's also possible there are sealed indictments that have charged Americans of which you have no knowledge. Hint: ^^^ Fact ^^^

    Yea and it's also possible that there are fairies and unicorns but we just haven't seen them yet..

    Go on.. Keep believing in your fairies and your unicorns..

    I'll still be here to laugh my ass off when you completely come up empty again and again and again and again.. :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Each right in the Constitution is subject to regulation and/or amendment, but there is no guarantee in the Constitution that rights must be equally regulated

    Ahhhh So you are saying that Constitutional rights are regulated based on what hysterical Left Wingers want...

    Yer right..

    You *ARE* drunk...

    :D

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    90

    I've been telling all you Dems/Libs for more than a year that getting dirt on your opponent, getting moral support or whatever, from Ruskies is NOT illegal, even if you're 100% guilty as sin.

    And you've been wrong all year ad nauseam. Here, let me help you:

    It is a criminal violation of federal campaign-finance rules, which prohibit foreign spending in U.S. elections, and the prohibitions have a broad sweep that disallow contributions, donations, or "anything of value" provided by a foreign national to sway an election. Donald Trump Jr.'s email messages regarding the June 2016 meeting with Russians support the case that the Trump campaign violated these rules as well as compound the Trump campaign's vulnerability to "aiding and/or abetting" liability under the general criminal laws for assisting a foreign national in violating the rules.

    In addition to that, in public as well as private communications, the Trump campaign endorsed and facilitated the actions of WikiLeaks.

    ... and you've all been responding to the effect that if we can somehow come up with a sufficiently sinister-sounding name to apply to it, that it will simply HAVE TO BE illegal.

    Nonsense. There are potential violations of campaign finance laws as well as many other instances of potential abetting a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Trump Jr. may have dismissed his private Twitter messages to Julian Assange as only a "whopping three responses," but for legal purposes, only one or two would be sufficient... along with Donald Trump's publicly stated support for WikiLeaks' intervention and "Russia if you're listening," encouragement of a foreign adversary to hack his opponent.

    While it's anyone's guess whether Mueller might choose to indict regarding these issues, I believe he will.

    I'm guessing it is neilm who is finally (and belatedly) "catching the fear", or more likely, just 'catching on' to reality??

    Your obvious ignorance regarding federal law does not constitute anything on the part of anyone... and least of all Neil. :)

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your obvious ignorance regarding federal law does not constitute anything on the part of anyone...

    And your constant wishful thinking does not reality make..

    NONE of the Russian meddling had *ANY* impact on the election, despite ya'all's incessant and hysterical claims from the past year...

    Ya'all were completely and utterly *WRONG* about that as ya'all have been completely and utterly *WRONG* about everything and anything to do with President Trump..

    So, why should *ANYONE* think ya'all have ANY credibility whatsoever??

  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    116

    Dead on accurate... well done. :)

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Federal law enforcement has been tightening security in the 100-mile zone near all borders and coasts, leading to a significant increase in arrests. Since Trump was elected in 2016, arrests in Florida went up by 76 percent, according to ICE statistics.

    Now THAT is what *I* am talking about!!

    President Trump.. Kicking ass and taking names.. :D

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    DACA recipient, 21, threatened to 'shoot all of ya bitches' at NY high school, police say

    A 21-year-old illegal immigrant who was allowed to stay in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was arrested last week in Rochester, N.Y., for making terroristic threats against students in a high school, officials said.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/25/daca-recipient-21-threatened-to-shoot-all-ya-b-es-at-ny-high-school-police-say.html

    Ahhhh yes.. The nice and sweet and tolerant DACA illegals..

    Why SHOULDN'T we keep them.. :^/

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    But if ya'all want to talk about the heavily redacted Schiff memo..

    It confirms that the FBI and the DOJ relied heavily on uncorroborated, third-hand, anonymous sources in their FISA application.
    Maybe Adam Schiff has more of a sense of humor than I’d have given him credit for. The House Intelligence Committee’s ranking Democrat begins his long-awaited memo — the minority response to the Nunes memo that was penned by staffers of the committee’s Republican majority — by slamming Chairman Devin Nunes’s unconscionable “risk of public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.” The Schiff memo, which has been delayed for weeks because the FBI objected to its gratuitous effort to publicize highly classified intelligence, including methods and sources, then proceeds to tell its tale through what appear to be scores of blacked-out redactions of information Schiff pushed to expose.

    Heavy Reliance on Steele Dossier Confirmed
    The FBI and the Justice Department heavily relied on the Steele dossier’s uncorroborated allegations. You know this is true because, notwithstanding the claim that “only narrow use” was made “of information from Steele’s sources,” the Democrats end up acknowledging that “only narrow use” actually means significant use — as in, the dossier was the sine qua non of the warrant application. The memo concedes that the FISA-warrant application relied on allegations by Steele’s anonymous Russian hearsay sources that:

    https://tinyurl.com/y7ggouec

    I'm game.. Let's talk.. :D

    The Schiff memo basically confirms everything that is wrong with Mueller's investigation.. :D

  144. [144] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    135

    But the "crimes" they are being charged for occurred long before they had any connection to the Trump campaign..

    Incorrect. In fact, Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, and Richard W. Gates III, the Trump deputy campaign manager who also helped with Trump's inauguration including funding among other things, were accused of multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering in financial schemes during the period 2006 through 2017.

    Hint: Reading the indictments versus believing the lying tweets and/or the propaganda being disseminated by the right-wing echo chamber before you post inaccurate information would go a very long way to ending or at least reducing this common occurrence on your part. :)

    Or maybe you have never heard of the INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY thingy...

    "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal "term of art" for someone charged with a crime, but in no way on Earth should one mistake this for a "fact." Indeed, people are guilty of crimes every day who may never be charged with the crimes they have committed, but that "no way in Hell" is the equivalent of meaning they are not guilty of committing a crime.

    Continuing to spew this same line of BS ad nauseam constitutes nothing more than the prolific proof of your lack of intelligence regarding issues of law, to put it bluntly, the proof of being a "coptard." :)

    To date, ALL Americans are COMPLETELY INNOCENT of knowingly colluding with the Russians...

    Happy??

    No. Quite obviously, people can be guilty of crimes without ever being charged with them. You spewing the right-wing rhetoric about "Bubba and the rapes," I wouldn't think I would have to explain this to you, but here were are. :)

    I'll still be here to laugh my ass off when you completely come up empty again and again and again and again.. :D

    I have no doubt that you'll still be the guy cheering on the statements of Vladimir Putin while insisting Obama was "hysterical" for expelling representatives of a country that attacked US:

    https://tinyurl.com/y776v35s

    You'll always be the "coptard" whining incessantly about "Bubba and the rapes" while insisting that Flynn and Trump et alia are "innocent until proven guilty" and sucking up the bullshit from the right-wing echo chamber and spewing it back here, whining "fake news, fake news" as the indictments surrounding the Trump campaign continue to be made public and the guilty pleas by Flynn, Gates, Papadopolous, and others grow ever deeper. :) *LOL*

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    131

    Fine. Then explain it to Neil.. Oh that's right. You only correct those who you find ideologically "unpure".. :D

    Incorrect. You claim to have no ideology, and I correct you on a regular basis. :p

    Neil is technically correct that the Supreme Court can regulate any constitutional right(s) as they so rule, while my point was that I did not think the sitting Supreme Court would rule that age restriction as constitutional. :)

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. Quite obviously, people can be guilty of crimes without ever being charged with them.

    But they are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty..

    And THAT is what sticks in your craw..

    President Trump is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY innocent..

    This is FACT.. :D

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil is technically correct that the Supreme Court can regulate any constitutional right(s) as they so rule, while my point was that I did not think the sitting Supreme Court would rule that age restriction as constitutional. :)

    Exactly..

    Neil is completely and utterly wrong when he claims that making it so only 75 and older can purchase firearms would pass Constitutional Muster..

    Thank you for agreeing with me..

    Hurts, don't it? :D

  148. [148] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    136

    Ahhhh So you are saying that Constitutional rights are regulated based on what hysterical Left Wingers want...

    Yer right..

    You *ARE* drunk...

    Incorrect again... particularly due to the fact that the makeup of the current Supreme Court swings in the entirely opposite direction. :)

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered”
    -Kamala Harris

    And yet, she supports abortion.. :^/

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Kamala Harris positions herself for white house run"

    One has to wonder if it's the same "position" she used when she slept her way into her Senate seat...

  151. [151] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick Your [137]

    Re "It is a criminal violation . . ."

    OK, I'll take your word that Russkies buying Facebook ads is "a criminal violation". As I said before, I'm not nearly as close to Russia as Sarah Palin was, but I can clearly hear all 13 of 'em laughing clear down here.

    Even if Mueller can get them to come and be prosecuted, I'm betting they'll plead 1st amendment, and wont even be convicted.

  152. [152] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    145

    But they are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty..

    If/when they are formally charged with a crime, they will be "innocent until proven guilty" of said crime(s), but that is moving the goalposts when you consider the fact that your repeated claim ad nauseam is that they've been exonerated when no such thing has happened. :)

    And THAT is what sticks in your craw..

    My "craw" is just fine, Coptard. Thank you for adding to the ever growing list that proves you're ignorant and/or delusional.

    President Trump is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY innocent..

    Thank you for your uninformed opinion, but there is evidence that's available to the public that proves otherwise, while Trump's former foreign policy advisers/former National Security Adviser as well as former deputy campaign manager have pleaded guilty to multiple crimes committed both before and after Trump's inauguration, and "guilty" sure doesn't mean they're innocent. The fact that Trump is now referring to Flynn as a "liar" when a few months ago he referred to him as a "wonderful man" means it's time to clue in. :)

  153. [153] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    146

    Exactly..

    So now you are agreeing with me that Neil is technically correct, but you are correct in regards to the current Supreme Court. :)

    Neil is completely and utterly wrong when he claims that making it so only 75 and older can purchase firearms would pass Constitutional Muster..

    I think you have moved the goalposts on Neil... again.

    Thank you for agreeing with me..

    Right back at you.

    Hurts, don't it? :D

    Not even a scintilla. :)

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I'll take your word that Russkies buying Facebook ads is "a criminal violation". As I said before, I'm not nearly as close to Russia as Sarah Palin was, but I can clearly hear all 13 of 'em laughing clear down here.

    "There is mimicry and there is mockery and THAT was definitely mockery"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy

    :D

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    So now you are agreeing with me that Neil is technically correct, but you are correct in regards to the current Supreme Court. :)

    Neil is technically talking out of his ass..

    Raising the gun purchase age to 75 is as constitutional as raising the voting age to 75 or the free speech age as 75..

    Neil is just pushing buttons with NO REGARDS to reality...

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    If/when they are formally charged with a crime, they will be "innocent until proven guilty" of said crime(s),

    That is flat out wrong..

    They are ALWAYS innocent until proven guilty, regardless of whether or not they are formally charged..

    That's the facts and that's the reality you just can't handle...

  157. [157] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    OK, I'll take your word that Russkies buying Facebook ads is "a criminal violation".

    I said no such thing, and your post didn't even mention Facebook whatsoever. You said, and I quote: "getting dirt on your opponent, getting moral support or whatever, from Ruskies is NOT illegal, even if you're 100% guilty as sin," and I supplied the federal laws that refuted that statement. "Getting dirt on your opponent" from a foreign source can be a violation of federal laws as I noted in my post, and "getting moral support or whatever from Ruskies" can be illegal if it can be proven the Trump campaign aided and/or abetted the "Ruskies" who "hacked" the election, particularly in a case of quid pro quo:

    A Russian lawyer who met with President Donald Trump’s oldest son last year says he indicated that a law targeting Russia could be re-examined if his father won the election and asked her for written evidence that illegal proceeds went to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

    The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, said in a two-and-a-half-hour interview in Moscow that she would tell these and other things to the Senate Judiciary Committee on condition that her answers be made public, something it hasn’t agreed to. She has received scores of questions from the committee, which is investigating possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Veselnitskaya said she’s also ready -- if asked -- to testify to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

    https://tinyurl.com/ycpefwjz

    So there's that. :)

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    I said no such thing,

    Actually, that is exactly what you said..

    But why let FACTS ruin a perfectly good internet rant, eh :D

  159. [159] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    155

    Me: If/when they are formally charged with a crime, they will be "innocent until proven guilty" of said crime(s)

    You: That is flat out wrong..

    So if you think it is "flat out wrong" that they'll be "innocent until proven guilty" of a crime, then I guess you think they'll be guilty of said crime until proven innocent? M'kay!

    Here, let me spoon feed you like a toddler in terms a pre-K child could understand.

    True or False: One violates a law when they fail to stop at a sign labelled "STOP." ~ True

    True or False: One does not violate the law when they fail to stop at a sign labelled "STOP" if a law enforcement officer fails to issue them a ticket. ~ False

    The fact that no one gives them a ticket has no bearing on whether or not they are guilty of committing the crime because they definitely did not stop at the sign that said "STOP," which is a violation of law.

    They are ALWAYS innocent until proven guilty, regardless of whether or not they are formally charged..

    Incorrect. See above. Here let me help you more: Who proved Rick Gates was guilty of multiple crimes? No one. He is guilty because he confessed to committing multiple crimes including conspiracy against the United States.

    The fact is, some charged with crime(s) will be innocent and some will be guilty, but it's up to the United States of America to charge them a.k.a. "indict" and then either obtain a plea of guilt of crime(s)... as they did with Flynn, Papadopolous, Gates, and others... or otherwise be prepared to prove in a court of law their guilt, while Defendant attempts to prove the opposite in order to obtain "exoneration" after due consideration of the case. :)

    Class dismissed.

    That's the facts and that's the reality you just can't handle...

    Please keep providing proof of your ignorance regarding the law, Coptard. :)

  160. [160] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    157

    Actually, that is exactly what you said..

    Liar. I mentioned nothing about Facebook in my post, and Stucki mentioned nothing about Facebook in his original post until he responded and falsely characterized what I posted and moved the goalposts.

    But why let FACTS ruin a perfectly good internet rant, eh :D

    I have a better question: Why lie about something that never happened like an inveterate asshole? As I have said many times and you keep proving on a regular basis, you wouldn't recognize a fact if it lived on your face. On the other hand, you lie on a regular basis, proving that facts mean nothing whatsoever in the alternate reality in which you reside. :)

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    So if you think it is "flat out wrong" that they'll be "innocent until proven guilty" of a crime, then I guess you think they'll be guilty of said crime until proven innocent? M'kay!

    NICE STRAWMAN!! :D

    It was really impressive how you knocked that straw man OUT!!

    Of course, I never said any such thing.. And the fact that you would go to such lame extremes proves how desperate and flailing you are...

    Liar. I mentioned nothing about Facebook in my post, and Stucki mentioned nothing about Facebook in his original post until he responded and falsely characterized what I posted and moved the goalposts.

    Yea.. Just like you said Officer Burton said a specific thing, which he didn't..

    You have already proven you are the liar here..

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    160

    NICE STRAWMAN!! :D

    Well, you claimed that a 100% factual statement was incorrect so I tried to guess what a Coptard would believe.

    It was really impressive how you knocked that straw man OUT!!

    It was simply a guess as to what bullshit you believed since you claimed that a 100% factual statement was "flat out wrong."

    Of course, I never said any such thing.. And the fact that you would go to such lame extremes proves how desperate and flailing you are...

    What part of the words "then I guess" is unclear at all when I've obviously taken ownership of the statement, Coptard?

    Yea.. Just like you said Officer Burton said a specific thing, which he didn't..

    NICE STRAWMAN!! :D

    I read it in an article multiple times and supplied the link, but nice straw man... actually not even a good try, and now it turns out there were 3 other deputies standing outside the school and not going inside when protocol since Columbine says you go into the school and take action regardless of whether you have backup.

    Again, it's in multiple places in the text and under two pictures, including the one of Officer Burton in a police uniform and a Mariners uniform:

    And in an interview with the New York Times, Coral Springs Officer Tim Burton revealed Peterson hid from Cruz when the teenager started shooting. Burton, who used to be a professional baseball player, said Peterson hid behind a concrete column.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5427207/Trump-says-cop-hid-gunman-coward.html

    So Blind Coptard, it should be interesting to hear the excuse of those three as to why they also remained outside in plain view of students and other officers who arrived on the scene and observed them standing there. :)

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, you claimed that a 100% factual statement was incorrect so I tried to guess what a Coptard would believe.

    You made the claim as to what Officer Burton said..

    I PROVED you lied about it..

    That's the beginning and end of the discussion.. :D

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    The meta-data on those websites prove they were published AFTER you lied about what Officer Burton said...

    Once again..

    You continue to lie...

    "You can't win.. I've got god on my side!!"
    -Max Von Sydow, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    HEATHER LOCKLEAR
    ARRESTED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

    Heather Locklear was arrested Sunday night for felony domestic violence and battery on a cop.
    http://www.tmz.com/2018/02/26/heather-locklear-arrest-domestic-violence-battery-cop/

    Dumbocrats... :^/

  166. [166] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick Your [156]

    I'm aware that you were not specific about where the 'moral support' came from. I mentioned it because it's currently getting so much press play, like when the former SNL senator was screaming about the Facebook people being too stupid to realize the Russians were meddling in our election when the ads were "paid for with Rubles".

    Which demonstrated once again that Dems/Libs are only in favor of free speech when it agrees with their worldview.

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which demonstrated once again that Dems/Libs are only in favor of free speech when it agrees with their worldview.

    Word.....

  168. [168] 
    John M wrote:

    Trump’s Approval Rating Drops Back To His Worst With 2 New Polls

    Despite Trump’s bullish take on his performance, the president’s approval rating fell five points over last month to 35 percent, according to a CNN survey, conducted by polling firm SSRS. That number matches the lowest rating of his presidency in December.

    A separate poll by USA Today and Suffolk University’s Political Research Center found similar results, with the president’s approval rating also slipping to match the lowest point that survey has found at 38 percent, with 60 percent disapproving of the job he’s doing.

  169. [169] 
    John M wrote:

    Yes, Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

    “Defendants and their co-conspirators began to encourage U.S. minority groups not to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or to vote for a third-party U.S. presidential candidate,” according to a Feb. 16 grand jury indictment obtained by Mueller.

    Over the entire final month of the race, Trump essentially centered his campaign on talking about the emails stolen by Russian intelligence and then released through its allied group WikiLeaks.

    “You clearly wouldn’t do that if you didn’t think that was effective,” said Rick Tyler, a GOP consultant who worked for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign during the primaries.

    Although Trump lost the popular tally by nearly 3 million votes nationally, he won three states that most observers expected to go to Clinton by a total margin of 77,744. Were the Russian efforts enough to have moved 77,744 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?

    Exit polling suggests that voters’ concern about Clinton and emails — and Trump’s pounding on that theme with the help of WikiLeaks in the final weeks — indeed made a difference.

    In Michigan, for instance, 60 percent of the electorate was bothered by the email issue, and 75 percent of those voters supported Trump. Relatedly, a quarter of Michigan voters settled on a candidate in the final month. That group broke for Trump 52 to 37 percent, while those who decided earlier voted for Clinton 50 to 47 percent.

    The fact of Russian interference in the election and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s preference for Trump was detailed in a Jan. 6, 2017, report released by the U.S. intelligence agencies. That conclusion was reinforced by Mueller’s Feb. 16, 2018, indictment.

    “They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” the indictment states.

    Tyler, the Republican consultant, wonders how Trump supporters can argue that the social media ads and fake stories had no impact, when it was exactly the sort of thing the Trump campaign was doing itself. “You can’t say that what you were doing was effective, but what the Russians were doing wasn’t effective,” he said.

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Trump’s Approval Rating Drops Back To His Worst With 2 New Polls

    Funny how you ONLY quote polls that say what you want to hear. :D

    Now, if you quote the polls that say what you DON'T want to hear, then Trump's polling is at 50%.. Which is even HIGHER than it was for Odumbo at this point in Odumbo's administration..

    FUN WITH POLLS :D

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

    The outcome of the election was NOT AFFECTED IN ANY WAY
    -Mueller's boss, Rod Rosenstein

  172. [172] 
    Paula wrote:

    Wonkette pieces are always fun: https://wonkette.com/630388/lo-unto-us-a-democratic-memo-is-given-to-beat-devin-nunes-on-the-ass-with

    Remember all the drama over THE MEMO? It feels like it was many years ago, because that’s how everything feels now. (Trump Time Compression Syndrome is real, y’all.) But it was in fact just a couple weeks ago! Well finally the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI), led by the stalwart Adam Schiff, have released their response, which takes all of HPSCI chair/Trump slut Devin Nunes’s lies, stomps on them, stomps on them some more, and constantly reminds everyone that Nunes hasn’t even read the source intelligence his dumb memo was based on.

  173. [173] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    162

    I PROVED you lied about it..

    You proved you're a liar and/or blind about the issue.

    That's the beginning and end of the discussion.. :D

    Still wrong... multiple times now. :)

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still wrong... multiple times now. :)

    Yea.. That's yer claim..

    But I have PROVEN you to be a liar, so your claim is also a lie..

  175. [175] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    163

    The meta-data on those websites prove they were published AFTER you lied about what Officer Burton said...

    More BS from you. Please keep proving facts don't matter to you, and make yourself useful and get some new movie quotes... the one about "god" is overused and would like you to stop using His name in vain... pun intended :) *LOL*

  176. [176] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    171

    Hilarious. :)

    Nunes hasn’t even read the source intelligence his dumb memo was based on.

    I would wager Ignorant Tool Nunes lost his TS security clearance. Seriously.

  177. [177] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    M-170

    There you go again putin' words in other peoples mouths. What he actually said is below.

    "There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

    And

    "There's no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election."

    If you are going to use other peoples words at least use the actual ones.

    "Duck, or you'll be talkin' out your ass."
    Buford T Justice
    Smokey and the Bandit

  178. [178] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    There is a repugnantly elitist overtone to the whole Dem/Lib sponsored effort to undermine and delegitimize the Trump administration that permeates Weigantia, and the entire Dem/Lib construct, the theme of which is that "We are universally far too smart, far too sophisticated to fall victim to the often ridiculous efforts of the Russians to delude us with their Facebook posts and DNC emails, but all of you guys (the great unwashed, borderline illiterate masses) were so gullible as to allow yourselves to be deluded, costing Hillary to lose the election".

    In a NUTshell (pun intended), "We, the sophisticated and educated elite, only vote our pure and virtuous ideology, but you uneducated dolts all let yourselves be conned by (mostly illegal) political propaganda"!"

    Well, as the Russians ares saying, "Bullski Shitsky"!

  179. [179] 
    Paula wrote:

    [177] Stuck-in-La-La-Land-i:

    You really need to be more sympathetic to we Libs. After all, there's just no EASY way to describe morons-cheaters-traitors like Trumpers and GOP-complicit-bigwig-traitors without sounding negative.

    And also, actually WANTING honesty from our leaders and lamenting dishonesty from our crimnal-WH-occupants ends up sounding "pure and virtuous" -- how can it not?

    Our problem is our opposition political party is corrupt at the top and deluded at the bottom, with a mushy middle full of people making excuses for their leaders' crimes/failures while supporting their "smash the little guy" policies.

    It's just not possible to be accurate and complimentary at the same time.

  180. [180] 
    neilm wrote:

    Raising the gun purchase age to 75 is as constitutional as raising the voting age to 75 or the free speech age as 75..

    Show me the supreme court ruling placing a lower age boundary on gun purchase rights Michale :)

    Also, the voting age for non-white males used to be "None".

  181. [181] 
    neilm wrote:

    There is a repugnantly elitist overtone to the whole Dem/Lib sponsored effort to undermine and delegitimize the Trump administration that permeates Weigantia

    You're damn right there is and if being educated, well read, and relying on evidence rather than gut instinct is "elite" then sign me up.

    You keep wallowing in propaganda from the right wing or Russia, and relying on your "common sense" to tell you what is right, but don't expect the rest of us to.

    The whole Russia interference isn't anything new, just a new player participating.

    Go read "The Age of Propaganda" by UC Santa Cruz professors Elliot Aronson and Anthony Pratkanis which was written in the early 1990's. It is all there, and those of us who read that book or a similar one have had a jaundiced eye to the media in any form since.

  182. [182] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    You keep using the term “coptard” to describe Michael. Just wondering what your definition for that term is?

    Since Michael was never a state commissioned police officer but was a military police officer (which means he never dealt with anyone who wasn’t completely tied to the military’s rules), I always take his claims of being “former law enforcement” to have an asterisk after it. Not as bad as when mall security claims to be part of “law enforcement”, but not that far off, either.

    If George Zimmerman fits the definition of “coptard”, then I am sure that I will fully agree with it!

  183. [183] 
    John M wrote:

    [169] Michale

    "Funny how you ONLY quote polls that say what you want to hear. :D"

    Funny how you only do the same. :-D

    "Now, if you quote the polls that say what you DON'T want to hear, then Trump's polling is at 50%.. Which is even HIGHER than it was for Odumbo at this point in Odumbo's administration.."

    Says your older, previous poll, and not the newer, more recent polls which contradict your older one.

    FUN WITH POLLS :D

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    More BS from you.

    Yea.. That's yer claim.. But you are a proven liar, so....

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since Michael was never a state commissioned police officer but was a military police officer (which means he never dealt with anyone who wasn’t completely tied to the military’s rules),

    That's not factually accurate... I was a certified deputy sheriff and a graduate of a POST certified Police Academy..

    But, of course FACTS have no place here..

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    There is a repugnantly elitist overtone to the whole Dem/Lib sponsored effort to undermine and delegitimize the Trump administration that permeates Weigantia, and the entire Dem/Lib construct, the theme of which is that "We are universally far too smart, far too sophisticated to fall victim to the often ridiculous efforts of the Russians to delude us with their Facebook posts and DNC emails, but all of you guys (the great unwashed, borderline illiterate masses) were so gullible as to allow yourselves to be deluded, costing Hillary to lose the election".

    hehehehehehehehe

    Hilarious.....

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not as bad as when mall security claims to be part of “law enforcement”, but not that far off, either.

    Oooooo Nice slam against the military..

    Figures....

  188. [188] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Kick (175)

    An old friend of mine from Etobicoke, now with a 'dubious news network,' said as much about Nunes and his security level>clearance.

    Funny how an off-hand remark triggers a memory hitherto blurred by a few pints and loud bar.

    LL&P

  189. [189] 
    John M wrote:

    [177] C. R. Stucki

    "There is a repugnantly elitist overtone to the whole Dem/Lib sponsored effort to undermine and delegitimize the Trump administration that permeates Weigantia"

    Except no one is trying to "delegitimize" the Trump administration. The Trump administration is doing that just fine undermining itself.

    All we Dem/Libs acknowledge that because of the way our peculiar electoral college system is set up, Trump was legally elected President without having won the popular vote.

    But then, it's not like all you Rep/Conservatives ever tried to delitigimize our nation's first black President with all those accusations of "he wasn't born in this country" "he's a secret Muslim" "his birth certificate is fake" "his school records are fake" nonsense?

  190. [190] 
    John M wrote:

    [177] C. R. Stucki

    "Well, as the Russians ares saying, "Bullski Shitsky"!"

    Apparently, you need this pointed out to you until it finally sinks in:

    "Tyler, the Republican consultant, wonders how Trump supporters can argue that the social media ads and fake stories had no impact, when it was exactly the sort of thing the Trump campaign was doing itself. “You can’t say that what you were doing was effective, but what the Russians were doing wasn’t effective,” he said."

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except no one is trying to "delegitimize" the Trump administration.

    Oh com'on, John... That is what you and the rest of the Never Trumpers have been doing for the last 2 years..

    And ya'all have *ALWAYS* been wrong...

    All we Dem/Libs acknowledge that because of the way our peculiar electoral college system is set up, Trump was legally elected President without having won the popular vote.

    President Trump was the legally elected President without having hit a home run in the World Series..

    What's yer point??

    But then, it's not like all you Rep/Conservatives ever tried to delitigimize our nation's first black President with all those accusations of "he wasn't born in this country" "he's a secret Muslim" "his birth certificate is fake" "his school records are fake" nonsense?

    And how was your reaction to that??

    So, you thought the BEST course of action would be to act EXACTLY like that???

    "GOOD CALL!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    :D

  192. [192] 
    Paula wrote:

    Another fun Wonkette about Nunes on FOX over the weekend: https://wonkette.com/630405/did-devin-nunes-fuck-a-bad-cow-before-he-went-on-fox-friends

    Concludes:

    Also, we fucking love it when Devin Nunes says that when people attack him, it’s because he’s getting too close. Yes, that’s right, everyone is afraid of the cunning investigative work of Devin Nunes, whose brain may have Mad Cow Disease on account of how he MIGHT fuck cows.

    The Fox News idiots were very pleased with the golden poo Devin Nunes had presented unto them, and complimented him in kind:

    'ED HENRY: Chairman Nunes, you’ve been ahead of the curve! […]

    PETE HEGSETH: You’re pointing out the collusion between the Democrats and the media. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate your time!'

    Jesus fucking heavens to Murgatroyd on a biscuit, did Nunes and the Fox News morons all romance THE SAME BAD COW before they went on TV? We just don’t know, but if right-wingers can believe in #PizzaGate, we can believe Devin Nunes and Fox News hosts have dirty #MooSex with #BadCows, and that is why they are how they are.

    It is only Fair and Balanced to allow us to do so.

  193. [193] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M Your [188]

    Hearty agreement about "The Trump admin. doing just fine undermining itself", but you can't be serious that that fact negates that the Dems/Libs are also doing it.

    Presuming, BTW, that you're aware that I did not vote for Trump, and that I consider him to be a world-class asshole.

    I never said nor cared about where Obama was born, etc, although I acknowledge the fact that other Reps/Cons did say all those things.

    But I never understood about the Muslim thing. Just because his father was a born Muslim, his mother was a Muslim convert his step-father was a Muslim, and his early education took place in Muslim schools, don't know why anybody might conclude that he was a "secret" Muslim, right?

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I never understood about the Muslim thing. Just because his father was a born Muslim, his mother was a Muslim convert his step-father was a Muslim, and his early education took place in Muslim schools, don't know why anybody might conclude that he was a "secret" Muslim, right?

    HEH

  195. [195] 
    Paula wrote:

    Lt. Gov. of Georgia tweets:

    I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA. Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back.

    THIS is what Republicans ARE: they use their official powers to punish people/companies that disagree with Repubs or make legal choices Repubs don't like. They also clearly write and pass legislation to help cronies and hurt un-cronies, as opposed to serving the citizenry.

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    THIS is what Republicans ARE: they use their official powers to punish people/companies that disagree with Repubs or make legal choices Repubs don't like. They also clearly write and pass legislation to help cronies and hurt un-cronies, as opposed to serving the citizenry.

    Think back to all the boycotts that Dumbocrats supported and pushed...

    What a two-faced liar you are...

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks the Left Wing/Dumbocrat terrorist group is wanting to recruit would-be school shooters..

    If You Have A Mental Illness, This Antifa Student Group Wants You

    A Texas Antifa student group hosted a six month health program to “politicize” students with “mental illnesses,” according to a Thursday report.

    The Revolutionary Student Front at the University of Texas at Austin hosted a “Revolutionary Mental Health Program” “to address the mental health needs of students in a way that would primarily serve to politicize and strengthen them, to become more committed to revolution and more capable of carrying it out,” reported Far Left Watch.
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/26/texas-antifa-mental-illness/

    Yea, let's follow Dumbocrats.. :^/

  198. [198] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS - what does it matter even if Obama was an open Muslim? Is there any law against it? Do you treat Muslims differently than non-Muslims? Do you think Muslims should be barred from elected office?

    What is your problem with Muslims?

  199. [199] 
    John M wrote:

    [192] C. R. Stucki

    Let's take these one by one shall we?:

    1) "But I never understood about the Muslim thing. Just because his father was a born Muslim,"

    Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father was an atheist or agnostic (i.e., no longer a practicing Muslim) by the time he married the younger Obama’s mother. The senior Obama first moved thousands of miles away, from Hawaii to Connecticut, so he couldn’t have received much of an “introduction to Islam” from his (biological) father, who after Connecticut eventually returned to Kenya and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education.

    2) "his mother was a Muslim convert"

    His mother Ann Dunham, in reality, was a white ATHEIST from Wichita, Kansas.

    3)"his step-father was a Muslim, and his early education took place in Muslim schools,"

    Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, was an Indonesian oil manager. Barack and his mother moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama spent 4-5 years attending both Muslim and Catholic schools before his mother sent him back to the United States to live with his maternal grandmother. As a six-year-old in Catholic school, he studied the catechism.”

    Barack Hussein Obama joined the United Church of Christ in Chicago in the 1980's.

    "don't know why anybody might conclude that he was a "secret" Muslim, right?"

    Given ALL of the FACTS above, I have NO idea why someone might conclude that either.

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS - what does it matter even if Obama was an open Muslim? Is there any law against it? Do you treat Muslims differently than non-Muslims? Do you think Muslims should be barred from elected office?

    What is your problem with Muslims?

    If Odumbo is a muslim why would he LIE about it???

    He DID say "his muslim faith"...

  201. [201] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm Your [197]

    Re "What does it matter. . .?" Who says it does matter?

    Re "Is there any law against it?" None that I know of.

    Re "Do I treat Muslims differently than non-Muslims?" I don't have any occasion to treat Muslims at all, never met one.

    Re "Do I think Muslims should be barred from elected office?" No.

    Re "What is my problem with Muslims?" I reject the premise of the question. What causes you to jump to that unjustified conclusion?

  202. [202] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Not as bad as when mall security claims to be part of “law enforcement”, but not that far off, either.

    Oooooo Nice slam against the military..

    Figures....

    Just basing that on your comments on here, not the position that you once held.

  203. [203] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Think back to all the boycotts that Dumbocrats supported and pushed...

    What a two-faced liar you are...

    You compare citizens exercising their right to protest to an elected official threatening to use his elected office go after businesses that do not support organizations that he believes they must back?!?!

    It’s your dishonesty that constantly makes me thankful that you are not a police officer... and makes me wonder just how much dishonor you must have brought upon other officers by your example.

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    You compare citizens exercising their right to protest to an elected official threatening to use his elected office go after businesses that do not support organizations that he believes they must back?!?!

    Are u saying that Dumbocrat officials NEVER encouraged or supported Left Wing boycotts??

    You see, this is why it's IMPOSSIBLE to think ya'all have any credibility...

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just basing that on your comments on here, not the position that you once held.

    No, you equated a military cop with a mall cop..

    You hate the military.. Typical Dumbocrat...

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/26/was_cowardly_fla_deputy_told_to_wait_for_backup_136368.html

    You can bet that Deputy Peterson was told EXACTLY that..

    Stand by for back-up and keep feeding intel...

  207. [207] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re "Do I treat Muslims differently than non-Muslims?" I don't have any occasion to treat Muslims at all, never met one.

    You are kidding, right?

    Re "What is my problem with Muslims?" I reject the premise of the question. What causes you to jump to that unjustified conclusion

    So why are you commenting on Obama being Muslim? Why did you bring it up if it means nothing to you one way or the other?

    Is it that you think it is clever of you to throw about red meat for Michale?

    Very sad. How about you tell us about whatever book you are reading if you just want to kill a few pixels.

  208. [208] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [206]

    Re Muslims - I didn't bring it up. John M started it by saying it was OK for Dems to try to delegitimize Trump because Reps had done the same to Obama (where born, Muslim, etc.)

    Not kidding at all (about no Muslims). Not many Muslims (maybe not zero, but close) in small Rocky Mtn rural communities. Likewise Black folks. We have to make do with Injuns.

    Currently reading Ron Chernow's U.S. Grant bio. Got it from local library, big mistake. Shoulda spent the $ for Kindle. Damn thing weighs a ton.

    Why do you keep saying sad? Your life unhappy?

  209. [209] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    179

    Show me the supreme court ruling placing a lower age boundary on gun purchase rights Michale :)

    *LOL*

    Do you think he's even aware of the fact that last Tuesday, 2/20, the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear yet again that the government has broad power regarding the restriction and regulation of firearms when they dismissed a Second Amendment challenge to California's 10-day waiting period in order to purchase a gun? This is yet another in a long line of cases where the justices have repeatedly refused to block strict gun restrictions/regulations, including but not limited to state bans on the sale of semi-automatic weapons.

    So there's that. :)

  210. [210] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Kick-208.

    You know... You can own that tank you have always wanted if you get a class 10 FFL....

    At least there are no restrictions there right?

  211. [211] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    M-

    That stoopid rebuttal to the republicons using the CRA to repeal the regulation preventing mentally incompetent people who are on Permanent SDI takes the cake.

    IF you had read the regulation in question it stipulates that only people on permanent SDI for mental incompetence should not be allowed to own a gun, or in other words you don't get to be on the dole and buy guns if you don't have all your marbles, there is nothing about if you have lost your marbles on your own dime in the regulation.

    Glad to know that the republicons prefer free guns to free cel phones, or food and medical care for that matter.

  212. [212] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why do you keep saying sad? Your life unhappy?

    Dude, I live in CA. Even if I'm not happy, I can get happy.

    But thanks, I'm good :)

    Hope you are too. Sincerely.

  213. [213] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    181

    You keep using the term “coptard” to describe Michael. Just wondering what your definition for that term is?

    With sincerest apologies to the knowledgeable and decent such as yourself, I do have quite a treasure trove of cop slang.

    coptard

    A law enforcement officer [or former] who exhibits behavior that is characteristic of a human being of below average intelligence.

    A coptard will constantly drone on and on about how knowledgeable they are about law and/or law enforcement while repeatedly demonstrating otherwise. For instance, the resident board coptard insists that Officer Peterson followed "SOP" despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Not as bad as when mall security claims to be part of “law enforcement”, but not that far off, either.

    *LOL* ... "mall cop."

    If George Zimmerman fits the definition of “coptard”, then I am sure that I will fully agree with it!

    If George Zimmerman were the real thing versus just a "wannabe cop," he would most definitely fit the definition. :)

  214. [214] 
    Kick wrote:

    James T Canuck
    187

    An old friend of mine from Etobicoke, now with a 'dubious news network,' said as much about Nunes and his security level>clearance.

    Smart guy, your friend. :)

    Funny how an off-hand remark triggers a memory hitherto blurred by a few pints and loud bar.

    *LOL* :)

  215. [215] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    191

    did Nunes and the Fox News morons all romance THE SAME BAD COW before they went on TV?

    It's name is Moopert Murdoch. :)

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    If George Zimmerman were the real thing versus just a "wannabe cop,"

    Except the FACTS clearly show that Z was *NOT* a "wannabe cop"...

    But I wouldn't expect you to have ANYTHING to do with FACTs... :^/

    Being the liar that you are and all that...

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    Glad to know that the republicons prefer free guns to

    Any FACTS that prove this??

    No??

    Of course not.. Ya'all NEVER have any facts...

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    That stoopid rebuttal to the republicons using the CRA to repeal the regulation preventing mentally incompetent people who are on Permanent SDI takes the cake.

    And yet, the ACLU sided and supported President Trump...

    As astonishing as it may seem, I'll take the ACLU over ya'all's hysterical NeverTrump-ism every day of the week and twice on Sunday...

    F you had read the regulation in question it stipulates that only people on permanent SDI for mental incompetence should not be allowed to own a gun, or in other words you don't get to be on the dole and buy guns if you don't have all your marbles, there is nothing about if you have lost your marbles on your own dime in the regulation.

    Hay.. Don't look at me.. CW characterized the legislation as not being able to balance a checkbook means one shouldn't own a gun.. Not once, but twice...

    So, if you have a problem with THAT characterization, then take it up with CW....

    Odumbo's EO was as stoopid and as moronic as his anti-gun FAST AND FURIOUS debacle...

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    Odumbo's EO was as stoopid and as moronic

    And that is VERY easy to prove...

    An Executive Order stating that, if you can't balance your checkbook, you have NO BUSINESS voting...

    Moronic, right??

    An Executive Order stating that, if you can't balance your checkbook, you have NO BUSINESS engaging in Free Speech...

    Moronic, right??

    Like I said... Ya'all really need to end each day and start each day with saying to yerselves:

    GUN OWNERSHIP IS AS MUCH OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AS FREE SPEECH OR FREE ASSEMBLY OR ANY OF THE OTHER FREEDOMS GUARANTEED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS

    If ya'all are gonna advocate taking away a Constitutional right to further a partisan agenda, then you damn well acknowledge that ANY constitutional right can be taken away to further a partisan agenda and that such is PERFECTLY acceptable to ya'all....

  220. [220] 
    Kick wrote:

    GT
    209

    You know... You can own that tank you have always wanted if you get a class 10 FFL....

    At least there are no restrictions there right?

    That would certainly cover it, but in Texas I would simply need to obtain a destructive device permit under NFA. As any tank I would likely purchase would already be registered under said Act, it would simply need to be transferred to me.

    https://tinyurl.com/o8dwt8v

    Will we ever buy one? Not bloody likely. :)

  221. [221] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    125

    Except the FACTS clearly show that Z was *NOT* a "wannabe cop"...

    THE FACTS

    * In July 2009, George Zimmerman applied to be a Prince William, Virginia, police officer, but Zimmerman was rejected because his bad credit/financial situation would've made him vulnerable to criminals.

    * In March 2010, Zimmerman submitted an application for police ride-along with the Sanford Police Department.

    * Zimmerman was working toward an associate's degree in criminal justice and set to graduate in spring 2012.

    https://tinyurl.com/ya7g9rsm

    Was Zimmerman ever a police officer? ~ No.
    Did he "wannabe" a police officer? ~ Obviously.
    _______________

    Weigantia would like to thank you for this additional contribution regarding your overwhelming qualifications as board coptard. :)

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did he "wannabe" a police officer? ~ Obviously.

    As usual, you move the goal posts..

    You said ZImmerman was a "wannabe" which is a noun...

    Did Z WANT to be a cop? At one time, obviously.. But, at the time of the shooting he was going to school to prepare for a law degree... He told me he wanted to follow in his dad's footsteps and be a judge..

    In the couple months prior to the shooting, Z was offered a position as a PSA, but turned it down because he wanted to concentrate on his studies..

    If he were truly a 'wannabe', he would have jumped at the chance to be a PSA, because it would have meant a uniform and a patrol car..

    Z was NOT a "wannabe"... This is fact.

    You are wrong... AGAIN.. This is fact..

  223. [223] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Surely you're aware that "tard" (abbreviation for 'retard')
    represents the ultimate in political incorrectness in this day and age, right???

    Michale

    Actually, I think "wannabe" would probably be considered an adjective.

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    Surely you're aware that "tard" (abbreviation for 'retard')
    represents the ultimate in political incorrectness in this day and age, right???

    Yea, but the rules don't apply to her. She is a Dumbocrat after all..

    Actually, I think "wannabe" would probably be considered an adjective.

    wannabe noun
    BrE /?w?n?bi/ ; NAmE /?w??n?bi/ , /?w??n?bi/
    (informal, disapproving)

    a person who behaves, dresses, etc. like somebody famous because they want to be like them
    a rock star wannabe

    In the context that Russ and Veronica was using it, it was a noun...

  225. [225] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    221

    As usual, you move the goal posts..

    You said ZImmerman was a "wannabe" which is a noun...

    Your reading comprehension problems and ignorance rear their ugly head again, incorrect Coptard. I commented to Russ that Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop," and you quoted me in [215] saying: Except the FACTS clearly show that Z was *NOT* a "wannabe cop"...

    What part of your own quote of my comment to Russ confused you?

    Additionally, a grammar lame, Coptard? If you're going to spew grammar lames you might want to make sure you know what you're talking about... and HINT: you very rarely do. In the phrase "wannabe cop," "wannabe" is an adjective. Crack a book.

    Did Z WANT to be a cop? At one time, obviously..

    So now you admit he was a "wannabe cop"... exactly what I said.

    But, at the time of the shooting he was going to school to prepare for a law degree... He told me he wanted to follow in his dad's footsteps and be a judge..

    If I had said he was a "wannabe cop" at the time of the shooting, you'd have a point, but I didn't say that... so you don't.

    I also have no doubt whatsoever that Zimmerman would lie to anybody about his father being a "judge." This is bullshit. His father was not a "judge," he was a court officer in Virginia called a "magistrate" and his mother was a court clerk.

    Statement of Kristi Wright, with the Department of Legislative and Public Relations in Virginia:

    “Robert J. Zimmerman served as a full-time magistrate from 2000-2006. Please be advised that in Virginia magistrates are judicial officers, but they are not considered “judges” and do not possess trial jurisdiction. More detailed information on the role of the magistrate in Virginia is available on Virginia’s Judicial System Website.”

    https://tinyurl.com/y8ns5rcg

    Z was NOT a "wannabe"... This is fact.

    I said he was a "wannabe cop," and he was, Coptard. :)

  226. [226] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    223

    Yea, but the rules don't apply to her. She is a Dumbocrat after all..

    Incorrect.

    Actually, I think "wannabe" would probably be considered an adjective.

    CRS, 100% correct.

    wan-na-be

    noun informal derogatory
    1. a person who tries to be like someone else or to fit in with a particular group of people.
    "a star-struck wannabe"

    adjective
    1. aspiring or wanting to be a specified type of person.
    "a pair of wannabe pop stars"

    In the context that Russ and Veronica was using it, it was a noun...

    Wrong again, moron; it was an adjective, and Russ didn't use it.
    _______________

    Weigantia would like to thank you again for this additional contribution regarding your overwhelming qualifications as board coptard. :)

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    so now you admit he was a "wannabe cop"... exactly what I said.

    No, I am not admitting that..

    "Wannabe" has a specific meaning...

    Z, at one point, thought about being a cop..

    Your use of the term "wannabe" is incorrect in describing George Zimmerman..

    Wrong again, moron; it was an adjective, and Russ didn't use it.

    OK, bitch, so now we are back to this?? Fine..

    I said he was a "wannabe cop," and he was,

    He was not.. I know him. You do not.. You have NO FACTS to support your claim.. I do..

    It's really that simple, bitch...

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    This Kentucky school district just voted to let teachers carry concealed guns
    http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article202341909.html

    Smart people....

  229. [229] 
    dsws wrote:

    I don't see the Mueller stuff as particularly newsworthy. Trump can pardon everyone involved if he feels like bothering. And not one single person in the entire country is going to change their vote over it.

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't see the Mueller stuff as particularly newsworthy. Trump can pardon everyone involved if he feels like bothering. And not one single person in the entire country is going to change their vote over it.

    Exactly.. A big nothing burger that's not going to change anyone's mind over anything..

    Smart guy..... :D

  231. [231] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    226

    "Wannabe" has a specific meaning...

    And so does "wannabe cop," which is exactly what I said to Russ when you decided to hijack my post to him and start spewing your regular nonsensical hair splitting bullshit with me.

    Z, at one point, thought about being a cop..

    Obviously, I already know this, which is why I referred to him as a "wannabe cop."

    Your use of the term "wannabe" is incorrect in describing George Zimmerman..

    I referred to him as a "wannabe cop," which you apparently had no trouble quoting in your post at [215].

    OK, bitch, so now we are back to this?? Fine..

    Call me whatever you wish; it doesn't change the fact that in the phrase "wannabe cop" that I used in my comment to Russ (not you), the word "wannabe" is an adjective, and you insisting it's a noun with your incorrect grammar lame doesn't change the fact that it's an adjective.

    He was not.. I know him. You do not.. You have NO FACTS to support your claim.. I do..

    Where are your facts, Coptard? I provided several above; while you provided the phrases, "I know him" and "He told me he wanted to follow in his dad's footsteps and be a judge." Well, considering the fact that his father wasn't actually a judge at all, how well could you possibly actually know him, Coptard?

    But seriously, I don't give a shit, Michale. My post wasn't to you or about you; everything is not about you, Michale. When somebody criticizes a police officer, a "wannabe cop," Donald Trump or __________ <-- take your pick, try not to read their comment like it has anything at all to do with you because it's not about you since not everything is.

    I said Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop," and he was. I said nothing about the timing of when he was a "wannabe cop," but it's quite obvious it wouldn't matter two shits whether or not he still wanted to be a cop because he never could under the circumstances.
    _______________

    Weigantia would like to thank you again for this additional contribution regarding your overwhelming qualifications as board coptard who apparently thinks every comment about someone he likes is about him personally when nothing could be further from the truth. :)

  232. [232] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    228

    I don't see the Mueller stuff as particularly newsworthy. Trump can pardon everyone involved if he feels like bothering.

    He can pardon them for federal crimes, but accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt and would put them in legal jeopardy for their corresponding state crimes.

    And not one single person in the entire country is going to change their vote over it.

    Obviously a vote already made cannot be changed, but I know multiple people who voted for Trump who will never vote for him again... so there's that. :)

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obviously, I already know this, which is why I referred to him as a "wannabe cop."

    A "wannabe cop" is a completely different meaning than someone who, at one time, wanted to be a cop...

    You got caught in another lie and now yer, once again, playing semantic games in a desperate and vain attempt to cover up your bullshit..

    Where are your facts, Coptard?

    Where are your facts, bitch??

    You have none..

    I said Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop," and he was.

    No he was not. And I have facts on my side.. As usual, all you have are lies and bullshit..

    Weigantia would like to thank you again for this additional

    Now you speak for Weigantia???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Just another liar who hasn't a clue.. :D

  234. [234] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Surely you're aware that "tard" (abbreviation for 'retard')
    represents the ultimate in political incorrectness in this day and age, right???

    I have a friend with a 13 yo son, Brian, who was born with Down Syndrome. Brian is the first to tell you that a person who is “retarded” was born that way and it isn’t their fault. However, Brian is quick to call you a “tard” if you do something stupid; as “tards” aren’t born that way, they simply choose to be mentally deficient!

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have a friend with a 13 yo son, Brian, who was born with Down Syndrome. Brian is the first to tell you that a person who is “retarded” was born that way and it isn’t their fault. However, Brian is quick to call you a “tard” if you do something stupid; as “tards” aren’t born that way, they simply choose to be mentally deficient!

    Well, isn't that convenient.. :^/

    So you can call people names all you want and it's all perfectly acceptable.. :^/

    Nice spin, Russ....

  236. [236] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    232

    A "wannabe cop" is a completely different meaning than someone who, at one time, wanted to be a cop...

    So what part of the past tense verb has confused you? Stating that George Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" is not the same thing as saying George Zimmerman is a "wannabe cop." This is how the use of past tense verbiage works, but how does one get through to an obvious uneducated moron like yourself who incorrectly attempts grammar and falls flat on his fugly face?

    You got caught in another lie and now yer, once again, playing semantic games in a desperate and vain attempt to cover up your bullshit..

    You got caught in your own stupidity and in the act of being the uneducated rube you always are. HINT: Those who don't understand grammar shouldn't try to explain it to those who actually do. You're the one playing semantic games and ignoring verb tense and claiming sentences mean things they never meant.

    Crack a grammar book and try not taking everyone's posts personally and whining like a toddler about comments that aren't about you; because everything is not about you.

    Your ignorance permeates your every post and explains your pathetic existence, goober. :)

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    So what part of the past tense verb has confused you? Stating that George Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" is not the same thing as saying George Zimmerman is a "wannabe cop." This is how the use of past tense verbiage works, but how does one get through to an obvious uneducated moron like yourself who incorrectly attempts grammar and falls flat on his fugly face?

    What part of "there is a different definition between "wannabe" and "want to be" is incomprehensible to you, moron???

    You got caught in your own stupidity and in the act of being the uneducated rube you always are. HINT: Those who don't understand grammar shouldn't try to explain it to those who actually do. You're the one playing semantic games and ignoring verb tense and claiming sentences mean things they never meant.

    Says the bitch-tard who is playing semantic games using the derisive term "wannabe" and then, when getting caught in her bullshit and lies, claiming she is actually saying "want to be"...

    You got caught in MORE bullshit and now yer just desperately flailing to save face...

    It's not going to work because the facts clearly are on my side...

    Your ignorance permeates your every post and explains your pathetic existence, goober. :)

    And yer desperation reeks, you fat cow...

    You got caught in yer lies.. AGAIN...

  238. [238] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    italyrusty [16] -

    Sorry for the massive delay in posting your comment. I answered you in the comment thread to Tuesday's article:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/02/27/all-in-the-family/#comment-116842

    -CW

  239. [239] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    237

    What part of "there is a different definition between "wannabe" and "want to be" is incomprehensible to you, moron???

    What part of the term "wannabe cop" in a post not for you and not about you has you whining like a little bitch and got your knickers all in a twist, snowflake?

    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Why don't you quit your whining and regale us all some more with your "Grammar Lessons by Goober" from his double-wide in the swamps from the Shithole State?

    Says the bitch-tard who is playing semantic games using the derisive term "wannabe" and then, when getting caught in her bullshit and lies, claiming she is actually saying "want to be"...

    You're confused again. I said Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop," and then you got yourself all heated up over the itty bitty phrase and might melt yourself, snowflake.

    It's pathetic that you don't like my phrasing, but it's a hoot and a holler to watch you carry on like a whiny little bitch over a phrase in a comment that wasn't meant for you and wasn't about you, snowflake.

    You calling another poster a "liar" because you claim to know the killer and he wasn't a "wannabe cop" at the time of the killing because he wanted to be a "judge" like his father [who HINT was never a "judge" to begin with so how well could you possibly know him if you think his father is something he never was] is about the most pathetic hairsplitting bullshit I've seen you post on this blog to date.

    He "was" your friend, snowflake? Or should I say "is" your friend so as not to offend your snowflake tendencies and send you off on a whiny little bitchfest?

    Where is your proof of that anyway? You have NO FACTS just bullshit... once again, you have NOTHING but bullshit.... NO FACTS to support anything you say... :D

    You got caught in MORE bullshit and now yer just desperately flailing to save face...

    I'm great, moron, but dude, a grammar lame? At least crack a grammar book and learn some damn grammar before you make an attempt at teaching it to educated people versus confirming you're the uneducated moron grammar lame dude. :)

    It's not going to work because the facts clearly are on my side...

    What facts? You have NOTHING but bullshit.... NO FACTS to support anything you say... :D

    And yer desperation reeks, you fat cow...

    But enough about your "friend" Zimmerman; you've both obviously let yourselves go. Years after the killing he was toting a gun and doing police-type work for free and according to the owner, without even being asked.

    Johnson confirmed he knows Zimmerman but told WKMG-TV he did not hire him to handle security.

    “I didn’t okay it. I didn’t know about it. I didn’t authorize it. I didn’t pay for it,” he said. “He had just watched Facebook and the news and just took it upon himself to come up here and sit.”

    “I sent him a text message telling him not to come back to the store anymore,” he added.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybszzb2v

    Your friend "Z" must really love being a "mall cop" to do it for free and without the consent of the business owner. Since the evidence and the facts show that he sure seems to want to enforce the law, are you quite sure your "friend" Zimmerman is not a "wannabe cop"? :) *LOL*

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    What part of the term "wannabe cop" in a post not for you and not about you has you whining like a little bitch and got your knickers all in a twist, snowflake?

    What relevance does that have to the fact that you lied, moron??

    You're confused again. I said Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop," and then you got yourself all heated up over the itty bitty phrase and might melt yourself, snowflake.

    Yes and "wannabe" is a derisive term and, when it comes to Z, completely and utterly inaccurate..

    I am defending a friend from slander.. I know, I know.. A fat cow like you doesn't HAVE any friends so you don't know the feeling..

    Where is your proof of that anyway? You have NO FACTS just bullshit... once again, you have NOTHING but bullshit.... NO FACTS to support anything you say... :D

    Actually, my connection with Zimmerman is well documented here..

    Once again, you get caught in bullshit lies..

    But enough about your "friend" Zimmerman; you've both obviously let yourselves go.

    Says the fat cow who reeks of.. well. just reeks..

    are you quite sure your "friend" Zimmerman is not a "wannabe cop"? :) *LOL*

    I am quite positive...

    Do you have ANY facts to support your claim, bitch-tard??

    No???

    Of course you don't. You NEVER do...

  241. [241] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yes and "wannabe" is a derisive term and, when it comes to Z, completely and utterly inaccurate..

    The evidence before and after the murder says otherwise, see links above.

    I am defending a friend from slander.. I know, I know.. A fat cow like you doesn't HAVE any friends so you don't know the feeling..

    I'm great, you uneducated snowflake, but you're not defending anyone from "slander," you moron; libel is the written word, and opinions on a chat board aren't exactly libel. If they were, then you've committed libel against others many times over and over ad nauseam in repetitive fashion.

    What's the matter, snowflake? You've demonstrated multiple times now that you sure can dish it out, but you can't seem to take it... even when it's a post that isn't to you and isn't about you... you got yourself all worked up and your knickers in a twist.

    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    I couldn't care less if you got your widdle feelers hurt because you didn't like an opinion that you didn't agree with about George "Wannabe Cop" Zimmerman on a political chat board. If differing opinions on a political blog are too much for you, perhaps you should grow some thicker skin or the sense enough to recognize it's not about you... because everything isn't about you.

    Actually, my connection with Zimmerman is well documented here..

    As is your unequaled ignorance and inveterate lying... so I repeat:
    You have no FACTS. You NEVER do. :)

Comments for this article are closed.