Yes, sir! And wasn't it awesome when Judge Amy Berman Jackson -- Ms. Jackson if you're nasty -- informed Stone in no uncertain terms that "this is not baseball"!?

What all this means, Mr. Stone, is that any violation of this order will be a basis for revoking your bond and detaining you pending trial. So I want to be clear, today I gave you a second chance. But this is not baseball; there will not be a third chance. If you cannot, or will not, or do not comply with today’s orders, I will find it necessary to adjust your environment so that you don’t have access to the temptations posed by cameras, phones, computers and microphones. ~ The Honorable Amy Berman Jackson

I laughed so hard, I cried. :)

Roger took a hard look at Manafort and race walked his comments back. I doubt the judge will let him do it twice.

Roger Stone: You just shared a picture on Instagram of the federal judge presiding over your case... complete with crosshairs target by her head. What are you going to do next?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5743634-Notice-Other.html

You never clarified for me your mom's "big me little you" thing (re the article being "kinda long" or not.

So, did you actually read the whole thing, or just the bold-face lines?

I don't understand that "bullying on the internet" concept. To my mind, "bullying" has to be physical in order to have any meaning.. I can't even comprehend 'mental bullying'. I don't do Facebook, Twitter, etc, but I'm all over Youtube and never have I ever felt "bullied".

I presume in your world, internet bullying translates to impolite, crude, ad-hominem etc. type posts. Course I get some of that, even here. One or two of the locals do their best to insult me with regularity. My response (normally unposted) is usually something to the effect of"Sorry dumbphuquer, if that's the best you've got, I can't help you".

That easily resolves any problem of "internet bullying", right?

Now you've shortened to my range - I definitely don't have any trouble relating to fishing "lingo". I lived for sport fishing till I got too old!

Sorry, I'm WAY too old to "get up on internet lingo". At least half of that "lingo" (BTW, that's a pretty old fashioned term - I'm surprised you don't have something new for internet "lingo), including especially the acronyms, sails right past me un-decoded.

So what is chain yanking a metaphor for? It's bullying a dog for sport. I feel no sympathy for the chain yanker who misjudges the slack and hauls back a bloody stump. That's a life lesson you don't forget.

Bullying is a huge problem on the internet. If you don't believe, look at YouTube content and comments. Or Twitter. Or Facebook. Case closed, and there are so many other similar cases. CW.com doesn't have a huge bully problem. Let's keep it that way with some push back when social norms are over stressed. Play hard, but play fair. If you want to mess with other peoples minds, go someplace else.

And don’t forget that the Fed’s have given Trump’s accountant full immunity for his assistance — he had to have something worth sharing to get that deal.

get up on the internet-age lingo. what used to be called chain-yanking is now called trolling.

i find it counterproductive to put people into categories like trolls, cranks and the like. trolling and flame baiting are things certain people may do at times, but they're still human creatures behind the keyboard. crs may revel in coming off like a paleolithic misogynist who hasn't read any research published since 1980, but i'm sure he eats pie just like the rest of us.

JL

Forgot to mention, spot-on about the "Troll" thing. I even live under a bridge!

Re "It will be fun to see . . ."

Probably be the first thing you've said for months that I agree with.

Your "The article is not that long" causes me wonder if you failed to figure out that you were supposed to click on each and every one of all those (how many, couple dozen?) bold-face lines in the body of the article, and read the multiple paragraphs that were intended to clarify and expand on each of the single-line topics.

On that basis, it did indeed qualify as being a "kinda long " article as I characterized it.

I certainly made no claims of "earth-shattering" in reference to the Huffpost article. That is your own terminology. It is indeed true that many other articles are available indicating that the Mueller investigation has run its course, and most people who are following the whole thing are agreeing with the Huffpost article, but if you and the rest of the die-hard Trump haters want to keep on hoping, certainly do not let me dissuade you.

I don't give a moderate sized rodents ass for what you intended. The following is what you wrote.

"I'd suggest that you people (particularly those who labor under the physical handicap of femininity), immediately go to Huffpost and click on their political column from earlier today, "What To Know About The Mueller Investigation Into Russian Election Interference."

The above is just a serving suggestion with an ad hominem slur directed at CW.com's female readership. You haven't insulted them, they can take it, but you have insulted yourself to a lot people, especially those under say, 65 YOA.

"It's kinda long, but try to slog through it, but first have your caretakers hide all the sharp object in the house."

The article is not that long, this is what my mom would call a "Big me, little you," statement, intended to insult. Honestly, one cup of coffee ought to see you through it. Unless you don't read well, or don't read very often for content and are out of practice. If want long, try The New Yorker.

"Then as you tear your hair and rend your garments, shout OHMYGAWD, whoda ever thunk the resident "moron" was right all along!!!"

Not exactly. My hair is not mussed and my garments are not hanging in tatters. No shouting. Not even an increase in my heart rate or blood pressure. The cat on my lap has not budged. Other readers should feel free to chime in about any adverse reactions, but please call 911 first.

The article you present as Earth Shattering is not great investigative journalism, but it's a solid middle of the road summary of what is widely known about The Many Investigations of Trump INC. There are many similar articles by other news outlets. I would cite them, but there is the one link rule, and besides there are so many it's hard not to trip over them. For the illiterate, there is always YouTube.

The HuffPo piece does not say Trump is innocent, it does not say he is guilty. It doesn't even give odds, numerical or qualitative. The article is all about the process, or more accurately the parts of the process that have been made public. So why would I, or anybody else say "the resident "moron" was right all along?" The game is no where near over. So why CRS, are patting your own fanny on the basis of just one inconclusive article?

For the record, I don't think you're a moron. I would guess you hold a college degree, probably obtained in the late 50s or the 60s, and you know something about microeconomics as taught during that era. You are semi literate about cold war era science and functionally illiterate about how modern experimental (inferential) science gets done. You are more comfortable with authors who published 200 years ago than you are with the current crop. You like simple, just so stories, even if they aren't backed up by details like verifiable evidence.

I admit I may be wrong, your persona could just be an act. I do think you are a troll. Trolls are basically on line actors, playing to themselves more than the audience. They come and go around here. Like I said, you are dancing on a tiny pin.

You are joining the ranks of the new group telling us they know what Mueller is going to do and when. You are part of the ilk that have been treating us to this wisdom for several years now. It will be fun to see if you are right. I have no idea, and frankly, I don't think you do, but you seem so nervous that the Democrats might get something to be happy about it just twists you inside.

It is amazing how CRS has inside sources of information into the Mueller investigation when everybody else is just waiting patiently because we have no idea when he will finish.

People like CRS were predicting confidently that Mueller would be finished by Christmas .... 2017. Then they were telling us it would only be a matter of months ... well over a year ago.

All the sensible people on this board know that they don't know nothing and just wait patiently to see the outcome. There seems to be plenty of evidence of collusion, but does it merit criminal charges? Who knows? Mueller knows, and he isn't telling yet.

CRS and his ilk might be petrified that either Trump is seen to be an obvious criminal, or even worse, that the left get something to jeer at the right about, but that gives them no more insight than the rest of us. However it does demonstrate that the ants in their pants are getting ever more irritating. And that is definitely fun to watch.

So keep up the speculation CRS, you are not convincing us that you know more than anybody else, but you are convincing us you are very unsettled, and that is amusing as hell.

If Hillary had won all the wooly thinkers who don't understand emotions vs. intelligence and couldn't look past silly partisan nonsense would still be amped up and spitting mad. So while Trump is an obvious idiot, and that isn't good for any country, the fact that the sensible people have been woken up and are paying attention to who is in power is good for the country, and likely to be bad for the GOP.

The impact to the legal system might be a long term problem for the country as attitudes move forwards yet judges stay firmly living in the past. But even that will be turned around - the legal system responds to public pressure far more than they like to kid themselves. Obviously you have the odd nutcase like Scalia, but it is usually morons like Thomas who are just too dumb to grow up and get sidelined.

Trump has exposed just how dumb a large percentage of this country is. They are scientifically illiterate (e.g. climate science for feck sake), have little understanding of the real world, and are easily emotionally manipulated by Fox News and the right wing media clown show. The more that their meanness, bigotry, and extremism is exposed and condemned, the better.

P.S. And BTW, my "pre-judgment" (about whether Trump's "collusion" with Russians will bring about the end of his presidency) is getting less "Pre" by the minute. Let's face it, Mueller's investigations of alleged collusion are all over but the shouting. For some reason, they are dragging out the publication thereof, and the local girls are still pinning their hopes on something yet to be revealed, but it ain't gonna happen!

My contention from day one was that the Democratics were trying to delegitimize Trump's win on the basis that he had Russian help, in the form of verbal exchanges amounting to providing political dirt in Hillary, (which 'dirt' incidentally proved to be non-existent) and that getting dirt on your political opponent is totally legal and always has been, and the source therof is irrelevant.

However, never at any time have I expressed any opinion about the legal status of any of their (Trump and his coterie) financial shenanigans, but knowing Trump's history, I'm betting "shady" financial shenanigans would damn near be a 'given'.

I suppose you could characterize that as "prejudging", and perhaps I'm incorrect about the legal status of 'free advice' (basically, whether it fits the legal standard of being equivalent to money, etc., as "a thing of value"), but as of today, I'm betting that my legal interpretation is on pretty safe ground.

It seems to me you are dancing on a very small pinhead. Do circumstances warrant the judicial investigation of Trump and his coterie of unethical and crooked hangers on ( well said) or do they not? If Russian hacking or other actions by foreign powers were part of a criminal conspiracy by said coterie, is it not the duty of Law Enforcement to take action by otaining evidence and, if warrented, initiate prosecution? This is standard United States operating procedure at national, state and local levels. It is so ingrained in the US society that an ungodly number of fictional TV shows are devoted each week to the subject. To repurpose an old cliche, where's your beef? If anybody around here is prejudging the matter, it seems to me that it is you.

"Southern District of NY" will be concerned with all the financial hanky-panky that Trump and his coterie of unethical and crooked hangers-on may have engaged in, and I fervently hope that it catches up with every single miscreant, but they couldn't care less (or as the borderline illiterates around here frequently say, "they COULD care less) about Russian email hacking and Trump getting dirt on Hillary from evil Commies.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/16/kamala-harris-california-2020-strategy-1173320

One phrase leapt out at me: ' mail ballots going out in February'. No wonder everyone is announcing already!

I hope the House of Representatives works to pass something like this in the next 2 years. Poll after poll shows a 'wealth tax' is incredibly popular to American voters.

I know the Dems don't want to steal the thunder of potential Presidential Candidates, but starting the conversation now builds moment for the 2020 election.

Don't forget the Southern District of New York. The Attorneys General of New York and New Jersey. Lots of other potential dominos waiting to drop wherever Trump Organization does it's business (phrasing intentional).

Is he lying? Sure! Does his base mind being lied to? If the last two years are any indication, they seem to love him more the more he lies to them. They will defend anything Trump says as being the Gospel truth! Really, at this point, what does Trump have to lose?

not enough pie!

It's kinda long, but try to slog through it, but first have your caretakers hide all the sharp object in the house.

Then as you tear your hair and rend your garments, shout OHMYGAWD, whoda ever thunk the resident "moron" was right all along!!!

I believe the Original Intent of The Founding Fathers was that the militia were to be supplied with rations containing adequate dietary fiber. Hard tack is notoriously constipating. Armies don't just march on their stomachs.

Oh, that Harris ;-)

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

I am now back from a trip to the "border" and an eyewitness to the fact that there is still no crisis on the Southern border.

"I didn't need to do this," and now I'm off to the golf course because "national emergency" *laughs* :)

The term of art for this strategy ought to be "Doubling Upside Down and Backwards with Other Peoples Money."

The Rolling Stone summarized his approach nicely in:

Donald Trump’s 13 Biggest Business Failures

to which I provide a handy link:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-59556/

Trump and bad decision making go together like peas and carrots. Some folks are dumb, some dishonest, Trump is both.

maybe he mistook her for liz warren

I have decidedly mixed feelings about Harris. As you can probably tell. Sounds like you do, too.

To me, her record is mixed. I feel the same way about Booker, too.

nypoet22 [2] -

Coulter actually said that? Wow.

-CW

"Any American citizen or resident wishing to own a gun will be required to register it and identify the militia with which he or she is affiliated. Only militias whose regulations meet federal standards will be acceptable. Standards will include mental, emotional, legal, financial, and physical qualifications; frequent and regular attendance at drill sessions; and practical field training in coordination with military and National Guard units. Handguns are not considered militia-capable weapons and will be repurchased from current owners."

Absolutely correct CW. The real lesson, as I'm sure you are aware, is that Kamala cares about votes more than weed - it just isn't in her top 50 concerns - whatever the voters want, she wants - so count her as a successful vote because weed is not popular with over 50% of the voting public.