The Robert Mueller Investigation

[TtomTerrific 200]

you have a 450 page thread right here to reference.. do I really need to quote all of it again, to make it a 900 page thread to satisfy your level of "proof?" 

 

or you could just scroll back 

[Hornius Emeritus 12417]

36 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

not limited to Shaggy... but you sure loved cheering with the pom pom at prosecutorial discretion and redactions... if not out right denying of special prosecutions... none of y'all "recused" yourselves from a God Damned thing  

 

I don't really have a horse in this race, but does anybody understand a damn thing that T Tom is referencing?

[hobbes2702 12799]

 

4 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

you have a 450 page thread right here to reference.. do I really need to quote all of it again, to make it a 900 page thread to satisfy your level of "proof?" 

 

or you could just scroll back 

You made 7 claims that were not true. Period. You lied 7 times in that post. I don’t need to read the thread to know that you lied 7 times. Perhaps you should do some research instead of being one of those stupid people I was talking about.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

2 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Are you going to respond to the poster who asked you to source your claim that "it's been widely reported that Trump is tougher on Russia than past presidents"? That was two pages ago and you have 10+ posts since then. 

What is the point of asking someone to prove a thing that everyone already knows is true? Doesn't that have the effect of making you look like you don't know what you're talking about?

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia

 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

 

You made 7 claims that were not true. Period. You lied 7 times in that post. I don’t need to read the thread to know that you lied 7 times. Perhaps you should do some research instead of being one of those stupid people I was talking about.

Hey, how much are we wagering?

[SDG 3319]

I’ve spent the last couple of days making sure my bombshelter was secure so I missed all of the news   Has Armageddon set in?  

[hobbes2702 12799]

Just now, Thetexashammer said:

Hey, how much are we wagering?

You can white knight for him if you’d like. Research his claims and tell us what was accurate or not in them.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, SDG said:

I’ve spent the last couple of days making sure my bombshelter was secure so I missed all of the news   Has Armageddon set in?  

It depends. What threads do you follow?

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

You can white knight for him if you’d like. Research his claims and tell us what was accurate or not in them.

We're discussing your claim that consanguinuity is limited to Pakistan. How much are we wagering?

[Thetexashammer 1062]

32 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Well if not eating meat was confined to one area of Pakistan then you would have a point. I’m not sure you read your own article or you would understand.

 

[hobbes2702 12799]

27 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-problem-of-inbreeding-in-islam/

It sound more like you're angry because the world doesn't resemble the way you would prefer it to be and your response is to run around calling people names.

One area of Pakistan you say? Want to wager on whether you have your facts right this time? 

 

Interesting to note here, Pakistani’s (both Christian and Muslim) are more likely to marry their first cousin than anywhere else in the world. It is more prevalent among the Muslim Pakistani population. 

It’s also interesting to note that first cousin marriage is legal in a lot of the world including several states and the practice used to be plenty common among westerners and Christians especially in rural communities. Approximately 10 percent of marriages worldwide are between second cousins or closer.

Edited April 20, 2019 by hobbes2702

[American Swindle 102]

You're not getting negged because it's Gavin McInnes. You're getting negged for considering YouTube videos "research."

They go into the research they find at multiple websites and even say what they are and show them.

If you want to research the subject, then do it on your own, but to dismiss it because it’s a “YouTube” video is a little cockamamie.

[hobbes2702 12799]

 

5 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

 

You realize that was based entirely on the article that you posted, which did not claim what you said.

Your second article did a better job supporting your claim but still did not address the claim that inbreeding lead to violence in Muslims.

[BradInATX 9208]

13 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

What is the point of asking someone to prove a thing that everyone already knows is true? Doesn't that have the effect of making you look like you don't know what you're talking about?

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia

 

 

- One data point

- Widespread

 

Pick one

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Interesting to note here, Pakistani’s (both Christian and Muslim) are more likely to marry their first cousin than anywhere else in the world. It is more prevalent among the Muslim Pakistani population. 

It’s also interesting to note that first cousin marriage is legal in a lot of the world including several states and the practice used to be plenty common among westerners and Christians especially in rural communities. 

I'll help you out since you can't acknowledge truth. Almost 500 pages of that, but I digress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity

Quote

Muslim countries[edit]

In the Arab world today^[when?] the practice of marrying relatives is common. According to the Centre for Arabic Genomic Research, between 40% and 54% of UAE nationals’ marriages are between family members, up from 39% in the previous generation. Between 21% and 28% of marriages of UAE nationals were between first cousins.^[13][23] Most Christian Arabs do not marry relatives as they do not believe in arranged marriages.^{[citation needed]}

In Egypt, around 40% of the population marry a cousin. A 1992 survey in Jordan found that 32% were married to a first cousin; a further 17.3% were married to more distant relatives.^[24] 67% of marriages in Saudi Arabia are between close relatives as are 54% of all marriages in Kuwait, whereas 18% of all Lebanese were between blood relatives.The incidence of consanguinity was 54.3% among Kuwaiti natives and higher among Bedouins.^{[25][better source needed]}

It has been estimated that 55% of marriages between Pakistani Muslim immigrants in the United Kingdom are between first cousins,^{[26][better source needed]} where preferential patrilateral parallel cousin marriage, i.e. a boy marrying the daughter of his father's brother is favored.

Double first cousins are descended from two pairs of siblings, and have the same genetic similarity as half-siblings. In unions between double first cousins the highest inbreeding coefficients are reached, with an( F) of 0.125, for example in among Arabs and uncle-niece marriages in South India.^[18]

It is a cultural practice, but it is largely a muslim cultural practice.

[TtomTerrific 200]

15 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

I don't really have a horse in this race, but does anybody understand a damn thing that T Tom is referencing?

yes... they do... that's why they are mad 

[TtomTerrific 200]

27 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

7 lies in one post homie. This is why you’re bitchmade.

please refute any of this... makes all 7 points without me having to re quote this entire thread... actually listen to an academic critical thinker and not Wolf Blitzer and some "non-opinion piece" 

I really don't want to re read and quote this whole thread 

 

let's hear what your issue is with any of this on substance. 

Edited April 20, 2019 by TtomTerrific

[Thetexashammer 1062]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

 

You realize that was based entirely on the article that you posted, which did not claim what you said.

Your second article did a better job supporting your claim but still did not address the claim that inbreeding lead to violence in Muslims.

I've said many times that one of the symptoms of TDS is losing the ability to read. I never made that claim. Again with the problem of facts. 

And if you look back at all of my posts, I have not insulted you , nor have I negged you, not even one time.

Edited April 20, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[hobbes2702 12799]

3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

I'll help you out since you can't acknowledge truth. Almost 500 pages of that, but I digress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity

It is a cultural practice, but it is largely a muslim cultural practice.

It’s almost like I said in that post that Pakistani Muslims are more likely to marry their first cousins than most. That’s good info though about the other countries. I was trying to find that while researching but couldn’t find any decent sources. Guess I should have known just to source Wikipedia...

[hobbes2702 12799]

3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

I've said many times that one of the symptoms of TDS is losing the ability to read. I never made that claim. Again with the problem of facts. 

And if you look back at all of my posts, I have not insulted you , nor have I negged you, not even one time.

I know you didn’t make that claim. My initial post was in response to a claim citing that Muslim inbreeding lead to violence. Apparently you didn’t read that. Must be TDS.

You are correct though that Muslims marry cousins at a higher rate than the rest of the world. The practice is much more common than I thought although I knew it occurred. 

I guess here’s my question... humans have been marrying their cousins, in all religions and cultures, for millennia. Why the hard on for Islam?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11807]

Is this the Muslim investigation thread?

[hobbes2702 12799]

15 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

please refute any of this... makes all 7 points without me having to re quote this entire thread... actually listen to an academic critical thinker and not Wolf Blitzer and some "non-opinion piece" 

I really don't want to re read and quote this whole thread 

 

let's hear what your issue is with any of this on substance. 

1. There was no rigging of the dem primary. Period.

2. Losing in a landslide means getting more votes?

3. How do you “rig” an investigation? Especially when it’s started by Trump appointees.

4. How you “lose” and investigation? Especially when the presidents campaign members are in jail.

5. Barr doesn’t have anything close to an impeccable record. And his “summary” has been proven to be misleading at the very best.

6. Cool

7. The “4th estate” is not “keeping this going”. The lack of honesty and the 14 other ongoing investigations are keeping this going.

8. Hard to say “baseless” when people went to jail and investigations are ongoing.

9. Cool

Thanks again Tom. Great job buddy.

Edited April 20, 2019 by hobbes2702

[Anastasis 23393]

7 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Is this the Muslim investigation thread?

Good night sweet prince,

And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Anastasis

[American Swindle 102]

 
- One data point
- Widespread
 
Pick one

This is some splitting hairs shit, there are multiple sources that reported it

[Chooky 13302]

26 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

yes... they do... that's why they are mad 

In all seriousness, I don't know what you're referencing with "prosecutor discretion and redactions."  Are you talking about Loretta Lynch?

[Thetexashammer 1062]

21 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Is this the Muslim investigation thread?

Well we're not gonna get to 1000 without getting creative.

[TornACL 7675]

16 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

This is some splitting hairs shit, there are multiple sources that reported it

 

But since there is so much inherent bias in media isn't it important for us to know which sources? 

Edited April 20, 2019 by TornACL

[Anastasis 23393]

4 hours ago, retread said:

Catching up ... has anyone told MItt Romney to go fuck himself yet?

There appears a long list of reporters and pundits lined up on twitter apologizing to Romney for their coverage during the 2012 elections. Amazing how the winds shift with such fluidity. All a bunch of spineless fucks.  Romney at the top of the list.

[Gatorubet 30083]

36 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Is this the Muslim investigation thread?

Look, if you are Muslim, you've got nothing to worry about.  There is no war on Ramadan, just Christmas.

[Rimbo 25773]

58 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

They go into the research they find at multiple websites and even say what they are and show them.

If you want to research the subject, then do it on your own, but to dismiss it because it’s a “YouTube” video is a little cockamamie.

 

Not cockamamie at all. Your success need to have minimum standards. And "websites" aren't real research, either.

[NAVY 6738]

Well, it’s a good everything got settled this week. Seems like everyone is clear on the happenings. Plus I can’t find my brain part 

[Rip76 4913]

This is weird

 

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

[Anastasis 23393]

They now are laying the ground for the release of the IG report. It will be extremely critical of the FBI's handling of what appears to be a Russian intelligence disinformation campaign that was inserted into the surveillance apparatus by partisans within the FBI.  Steele has refused cooperation...because he feels it inappropriate for a foreign intelligence operative to be engaged in the FBI investigation.  Hard to make up. But this is what is coming. Hope FISA reforms come as result. Doubt it. Useful idiocy appears to be a prevalent finding. Suprised that our resident active measures expert didn't see this coming. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/steele-dossier-mueller-report.html 

The Justice Department’s inspector general is considering whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation improperly relied on the dossier in applying to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a warrant to eavesdrop on Carter Page, a Trump adviser. The inspector general wants to know what the F.B.I. learned about Mr. Steele’s sources and whether it disclosed any doubts about their veracity to the court.

...

By January 2017, F.B.I. agents had tracked down and interviewed one of Mr. Steele’s main sources, a Russian speaker from a former Soviet republic who had spent time in the West, according to a Justice Department document and three people familiar with the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. After questioning him about where he’d gotten his information, they suspected he might have added his own interpretations to reports passed on by his sources, one of the people said. For the F.B.I., that made it harder to decide what to trust.

...

Another possibility — one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation. That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump’s presidency as well.

Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. “Russia has huge experience in spreading false information,” he said.

...

But that is an issue to which multiple inquiries are likely to return. There has been much chatter among intelligence experts that Mr. Steele’s Russian informants could have been pressured to feed him disinformation.

Daniel Hoffman, a former C.I.A. officer who served in Moscow, said he had long suspected the dossier was contaminated by Russian fabrications. The goal, he said, would be to deepen American divisions and blur the line between truth and falsehood.

 

Mueller Report Likely to Renew Scrutiny of Steele Dossier

 

The London offices of Orbis Business Intelligence. The firm’s co-owner is Christopher Steele, who wrote a series of memos in 2016 alleging ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.CreditStefan Wermuth/Reuters

 

 

Image

The London offices of Orbis Business Intelligence. The firm’s co-owner is Christopher Steele, who wrote a series of memos in 2016 alleging ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.CreditCreditStefan Wermuth/Reuters

By Scott Shane, Adam Goldman and Matthew Rosenberg

• April 19, 2019
• •  
  •  
  •  

WASHINGTON — The 35-page dossier, spiced up with tales of prostitutes and spies, sketched out a hair-raising story more than two years ago. Russian intelligence had used bribery and blackmail to try to turn Donald J. Trump into a source and ally, it said, and the Kremlin was running some Trump campaign aides practically as agents.

But the release on Thursday of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months — that while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove. Mr. Mueller’s report contained over a dozen passing references to the document’s claims but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out.

Now the dossier — financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and compiled by the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele — is likely to face new, possibly harsh scrutiny from multiple inquiries.

Republicans in Congress have vowed to investigate. The Justice Department’s inspector general is considering whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation improperly relied on the dossier in applying to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a warrant to eavesdrop on Carter Page, a Trump adviser. The inspector general wants to know what the F.B.I. learned about Mr. Steele’s sources and whether it disclosed any doubts about their veracity to the court.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

And Attorney General William Barr has said he will review the F.B.I.’s conduct in the Russia investigation. His remark that there was “spying” on the Trump campaign has already encouraged Republican accusations of misconduct.

Interviews with people familiar with Mr. Steele’s work on the dossier and the F.B.I.’s scramble to vet its claims suggest that misgivings about its reliability arose not long after the document became public — and a preoccupation of Trump opponents — in early 2017. Mr. Steele has made clear to associates that he always considered the dossier to be raw intelligence — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation.

 

You have 4 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

 

 

By January 2017, F.B.I. agents had tracked down and interviewed one of Mr. Steele’s main sources, a Russian speaker from a former Soviet republic who had spent time in the West, according to a Justice Department document and three people familiar with the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. After questioning him about where he’d gotten his information, they suspected he might have added his own interpretations to reports passed on by his sources, one of the people said. For the F.B.I., that made it harder to decide what to trust.

 

 

Mr. Steele is a former British intelligence agent who served in Moscow.CreditVictoria Jones/Press Association, via Associated Press

 

 

Image

Mr. Steele is a former British intelligence agent who served in Moscow.CreditVictoria Jones/Press Association, via Associated Press

Agents did not believe that either the source or Mr. Steele was deliberately inventing things, according to the former official. How the dossier ended up loaded with dubious or exaggerated details remains uncertain, but the document may be the result of a high-stakes game of telephone, in which rumors and hearsay were passed from source to source.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Another possibility — one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation. That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump’s presidency as well.

Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. “Russia has huge experience in spreading false information,” he said.

Mr. Steele declined to comment for this article. But Joshua A. Levy, a lawyer for Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the dossier, said the Mueller inquiry substantiated “the core reporting” in the Steele memos — including “that Trump campaign figures were secretly meeting Kremlin figures,” and that Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, had directed “a covert operation to elect Donald J. Trump.”

While The New York Times and many other news organizations published little about the document’s unverified claims, social media partisans and television commentators discussed them almost daily over the past two years. The dossier tantalized Mr. Trump’s opponents with a worst-case account of the president’s conduct. And for those trying to make sense of the Trump-Russia saga, the dossier infused the quest for understanding with urgency.

In blunt prose, it suggested that a foreign power had fully compromised the man who would become the next president of the United States.

The Russians, it asserted, had tried winning over Mr. Trump with real estate deals in Moscow — which he had not taken up — and set him up with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel in 2013, filming the proceedings for future exploitation. A handful of aides were described as conspiring with the Russians at every turn.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

SIGN UP

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Trump, it said, had moles inside the D.N.C. The memos claimed that he and the Kremlin had been exchanging intelligence for eight years and were using Romanian hackers against the Democrats, and that Russian pensioners in the United States were running a covert communications network.

 

 

The F.B.I. obtained a wiretapping warrant to monitor Carter Page, a Trump adviser named in the Steele dossier.CreditJ. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

 

 

Image

The F.B.I. obtained a wiretapping warrant to monitor Carter Page, a Trump adviser named in the Steele dossier.CreditJ. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

Such shocking claims may have seemed more plausible because of the conduct of Mr. Trump and his advisers. He was outspoken in his praise for Mr. Putin and hostile toward NATO. And a dozen associates, including his son Donald Jr., met or corresponded with Russians, including some with suspected intelligence connections, while failing to report the contacts to the F.B.I.

Mr. Trump’s former lawyer Michael D. Cohen negotiated for a Trump Tower project in Moscow many months into the campaign — and later admitted lying about it to Congress, along with tax evasion and other crimes. But Mr. Cohen did not, as the dossier claimed, travel to Prague to conspire in the Russian hacking of Democrats, the Mueller report makes clear.

Similarly, Mr. Page, a foreign policy adviser, was invited to address a prestigious Moscow institute in July 2016 in what seems to have been a calculated Russian attempt to curry favor. But Mr. Mueller, after a two-year investigation involving roughly 40 F.B.I. agents and other specialists, provided no evidence to support the claim that the adviser had collected a brokerage fee for the sale of a share of the Russian oil giant Rosneft. Nor has any evidence emerged to support the dossier’s claims about D.N.C. moles, Romanian hackers, Russian pensioners — or years of Trump-Putin intelligence trading.

Other dossier assertions remain neither proved nor disproved, notably its claim about Mr. Trump’s alleged dalliance with prostitutes. The Mueller report says a Russian businessman texted Mr. Cohen a week before the election to say that he had “stopped the flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else.” The businessman, Giorgi Rtskhiladze, later said he was referring to compromising tapes of Mr. Trump — but had been told they were fake.

The dossier began as part of a conventional opposition research operation by a small Washington firm, Fusion GPS. During the early part of the campaign, Fusion was paid by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication funded by the billionaire Paul Singer, to scrutinize Mr. Trump, with the evident goal of uncovering dirt to help his Republican primary opponents.

After Mr. Trump emerged as the likely nominee, Fusion kept working but turned to a new source of funding: the law firm representing the Clinton campaign, Perkins Coie. Noticing in May 2016 the Trump campaign’s unexpected affinity for Russia, Fusion hired Mr. Steele, a veteran of Britain’s MI6 intelligence agency, to dig deeper. Mr. Steele has told acquaintances that he did not know the ultimate client was the Clinton campaign.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Former F.B.I. and Central Intelligence Agency officers who knew him respected Mr. Steele, who had served in Moscow before leading the Russia desk at MI6’s headquarters. After leaving government service, he had helped the F.B.I. with an investigation of FIFA, the international governing body of soccer, and with other matters involving Russia.

Mr. Steele, who co-owns a private intelligence firm in London, Orbis Business Intelligence, reached out to sources he had relied on in past Russia-related investigations. Between June and December 2016, he sent Fusion at least 17 reports, ranging from one to three pages, describing raw, unconfirmed information on a wide range of alleged connections between Mr. Trump, his aides and Russian operatives.

 

 

Mr. Steele alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2016 to what his sources were telling him.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times

Mr. Steele decided early on that what he was hearing posed a grave danger to the United States. He alerted an F.B.I. agent he knew well, and on Sept. 19, 2016, his reports reached the team in Washington that had started investigating Trump-Russia connections nearly two months earlier.

The F.B.I. assembled a group of analysts to check every line of Mr. Steele’s short memos. Agents hit the streets to find and interview his sources, eventually identifying and speaking with at least two.

By summer 2017, with Mr. Mueller’s investigation in high gear, the F.B.I. still could not vouch for much of the dossier. One often-discussed claim — the detailed account of Mr. Cohen’s supposed trip to Prague — appeared to be false. Mr. Cohen’s financial records and C.I.A. queries to foreign intelligence services revealed nothing to support it.

F.B.I. agents on Mr. Mueller’s team debriefed Mr. Steele himself in London for two days in September 2017, according to a person familiar with the meeting.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Last year, in a deposition in a lawsuit filed against Buzzfeed, Mr. Steele emphasized that his reports consisted of unverified intelligence. Asked whether he took into account that some claims might be Russian fabrications, he replied, “Yes.”

F.B.I. agents considered whether Russia had polluted the stream of intelligence, but did not give it much credence, according to the former official.

But that is an issue to which multiple inquiries are likely to return. There has been much chatter among intelligence experts that Mr. Steele’s Russian informants could have been pressured to feed him disinformation.

Daniel Hoffman, a former C.I.A. officer who served in Moscow, said he had long suspected the dossier was contaminated by Russian fabrications. The goal, he said, would be to deepen American divisions and blur the line between truth and falsehood.

“How many times have hearings on Capitol Hill used information from the dossier?” Mr. Hoffman said. “How much damage has it already caused?”

 

 

A version of this article appears in print on April 19, 2019 of the New York edition. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe[/quote]

[wildcat09 29226]

Ah yes, all those partisan Democrats in the FBI.

[Anastasis 23393]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Ah yes, all those partisan Democrats in the FBI.

Dynamite take. NYT is laying the runway. Steele and Horowitz tensions are coming from multiple sources at this point. You don't have drink the water, I can only walk you to it. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

43 minutes ago, Chooky said:

In all seriousness, I don't know what you're referencing with "prosecutor discretion and redactions."  Are you talking about Loretta Lynch?

I’m not sure what to make of a chooky post that starts out with “in all seriousness” and then the middle and end are serious. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

14 minutes ago, Rip76 said:

This is weird

 

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Look the Russians are not an issue. Mr. Obama said that way back in the early 21st c.  He just ignored a non issue. 

[wildcat09 29226]

45 minutes ago, Chooky said:

In all seriousness, I don't know what you're referencing with "prosecutor discretion and redactions."  Are you talking about Loretta Lynch?

It goes back to some old thread on shaggy years ago. I don’t remember what the initial topic was but probably DACA. He really couldn’t get his mind around the concept of prosecutorial discretion and basically went insane.

now that I’m thinking on it, it might have been about that county clerk that got in trouble for not certifying gay marriages. I think he struggled with discretionary vs ministerial functions if I remember correctly. Sadly his cognitive faculties haven’t improved since then.

[BradInATX 9208]

57 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

This is some splitting hairs shit, there are multiple sources that reported it

 

Asking you and your friends to post things that are supported by real facts instead of running around spewing your feelings and insecurities all over the board is splitting hairs?

Aight. Carry on.

[retread 2951]

38 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There appears a long list of reporters and pundits lined up on twitter apologizing to Romney for their coverage during the 2012 elections. Amazing how the winds shift with such fluidity. All a bunch of spineless fucks.  Romney at the top of the list.

Yep. The odds are like $0.01 'Yes' on Prectit, but I will gladly say I was wrong and eat my crow if somehow Romney is earnest in his criticism and gets ~20  more Rs in the Senate to reclaim our country from Cheeto. Until then, he can save his best impression of Jeff Flake for another time.

Edited April 20, 2019 by retread

[troph 24562]

Look, if you are Muslim, you've got nothing to worry about.  There is no war on Ramadan, just Christmas.

And chicken sandwiches in the San Antonio airport.

[Anastasis 23393]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Asking you and your friends to post things that are supported by real facts instead of running around spewing your feelings and insecurities all over the board is splitting hairs?

Aight. Carry on.

I fucking laughed out loud.  Welcome to the thread Brad. It's been a real hoot. 

 

This is not the place for logic or facts.  Unless you like being called names.  Then by all means proceed. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I fucking laughed out loud.  Welcome to the thread Brad. It's been a real hoot. 

 

This is not the place for logic or facts.  Unless you like being called names.  Then by all means proceed. 

Yeah, I really would have been better off sticking to arguing with bad_teammate about Bernie Sanders than venturing into this shit show.

[Anastasis 23393]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Yeah, I really would have been better off sticking to arguing with bad_teammate about Bernie Sanders than venturing into this shit show.

 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

2 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

I'm not going to start "sourcing" a God Damned thing while we are typing on a thread where all of the actors have put their flag in the ground

A rare moment of self-realization?  No?  Maybe?

[suddenly shaggy 929]

2 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Trump loves the poorly educated so much, he made Betsy Devos Secretary of Education. 

[Anastasis 23393]

1 minute ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Trump loves the poorly educated so much, he made Betsy Devos Secretary of Education. 

That appointment was just closing the loop on the Spectrum Health - Alfa Bank - Cambridge Analytica - GRU content development and micro targeting operation.  

[jimmyjazz 45546]

28 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I’m not sure what to make of a chooky post that starts out with “in all seriousness” and then the middle and end are serious. 

We live in interesting times.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

That appointment was just closing the loop on the Spectrum Health - Alfa Bank - Cambridge Analytica - GRU content development and micro targeting operation.  

It's hard to take your posts seriously without a shitty meme or complaint about Twitter. 

I'll post your favorite for you to get us back on track. 

[Anastasis 23393]

1 minute ago, suddenly shaggy said:

It's hard to take your posts seriously without a shitty meme or complaint about Twitter. 

I'll post your favorite for you to get us back on track.