The Robert Mueller Investigation

[David Dennison 18656]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The walls are definitely closing in now.  Just like they did on Kavanaugh.  You fuckers are batting a thousand with bullshit slander.  Keep doing it.  It’s a winning play. 

How'd those midterms go?

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Do you classify yourself as fair minded on this issue?

Normally yes. But I hate liars and therefore trump types with the passion of a thousand suns. So I admit my judgment can be sometimes blinded by the complete contempt I have for the greatest liar this Country has ever seen and he’s our fucking president. 

Since you never seem to post anything negative about him I assume you agree with him, which makes you just as bad. 

Does that answer your question? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Normally yes. But I hate liars and therefore trump types with the passion of a thousand suns. So I admit my judgment can be sometimes blinded by the complete contempt I have for the greatest liar this Country has ever seen and he’s our fucking president. 

Since you never seem to post anything negative about him I assume you agree with him, which makes you just as bad. 

Does that answer your question? 

You hate liars but were #withher?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

What politicians aren’t liars?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The walls are definitely closing in now.  Just like they did on Kavanaugh.  You fuckers are batting a thousand with bullshit slander.  Keep doing it.  It’s a winning play. 

Be interesting to see the findings if Mueller did a two year investigation into Kavanaugh.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

You hate liars but were #withher?

I didn’t support Hillary. Never did. I wanted Bernie to win the primary because he had a better chance of beating your liar dear leader trump. I ultimately voted for Hillary only because I wanted Trump to lose because he would be terrible for the country. And I was right. 

Who did you vote for Sack? Gary Johnson? 

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

What politicians aren’t liars?

The good ones? 

Stop trying to make Trump seem normal. He’s a scumbag of a degree never seen before in this country. So stop with your all politicians lie bullshit. Trump lies about what he had for breakfast. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

14 minutes ago, retread said:

Barr knew what he was getting into. I believe the law gives him discretion as to what he releases. I could see Barr releasing only a final summary or releasing the exculpatory parts and keeping the bad parts to himself or some other asshattery.

I'm not sure Barr cares if he and Rosenstein take all the heat for Cheeto. That's probably what he expected when taking the job.

 

Back in 1992, Barr was coined “The Coverup-General” in a NYTs editorial.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/19/opinion/essay-the-patsy-prosecutor.html

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Quote

First, and foremost, obstruction is an intent crime. The same act done for a lawful intent (say, firing James Comey to repair FBI management) is a crime if done with mal-intent (say, to thwart an investigation). Here, Mueller was not able to secure the president’s testimony—a decision that is itself worthy of lengthy discussion, but for my purposes here is a given—and thus was denied the best direct evidence of the president’s intent. More to the point, it is highly likely that Trump acted with a mixture of motives—and with motives that were ever-changing across the timeline of his activity. This is often true of many defendants, but it seems especially true of Trump, whose situational approach to his own motivation is a product of his unique character. That is not a good start to proving intentional obstruction.

Quote

Second, obstruction is harder to prove when there is no indictable underlying crime. Not impossible, but harder—the obvious response is “Why would I obstruct when I didn’t do anything wrong in the first instance?” As Barr put it in his letter: “[T]he Special Counsel recognized that the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference, and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.” That’s a challenging barrier to prosecution.

Quote

Third, an obstruction case is difficult when the prosecution is dealing with damaged witnesses—that is, witnesses who have previously been convicted of lying (some even after pleading guilty) or who are likely to lie to defend Trump out of loyalty to him. Who are some of the other people who might be able to testify to Trump’s intent? Paul Manafort? Michael Flynn? Both are suspect because of their prior criminal pleas (and, in Manafort’s case, his postplea conduct). How about Donald Trump Jr. or Jared Kushner? Good luck getting truthful testimony from them. It’s hard getting children to testify against parents generally. It will be doubly hard in the context of this highly charged (and, in their view, politicized) context.

Quote

Fourth, and finally, many of the president’s actions took place (as Barr notes) in public view. This is not, of course, determinative, but again it does tend to negate intent, since the obvious response is, “If I thought it was obstruction, would I have done it on television?” Of course, a cagey criminal could game the system by obstructing in public, knowing that it weakens the prosecutor’s factual case. But the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor—and so that caginess is just a realistic assessment of how difficult proof beyond a reasonable doubt is or can be in contested cases. Here, as I said once before, it is likely that the president’s best defense to an obstruction charge is that he is ignorant of the law and of his role in the government.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-obstruction-justice-mystery-barr-letter

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

22 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Normally yes. But I hate liars and therefore trump types with the passion of a thousand suns. So I admit my judgment can be sometimes blinded by the complete contempt I have for the greatest liar this Country has ever seen and he’s our fucking president. 

Since you never seem to post anything negative about him I assume you agree with him, which makes you just as bad. 

Does that answer your question? 

If you hate liars then how do you even vote  ?  Is it degrees of lies or just the lies you like or don't like ?  Your answer is so empty, I don't know if you're even being serious.  Trump is the worst lying president ?  Tell me how old were you the Mr. Obama said you can keep your doctor, or you'll get $2,500 in savings every year (dozens and dozens of times).  Those lies didn't bug you ?  Mrs. Clinton lying about classified material being on her private server, her continual memory loss when ever questioned about anything under oath, but her ability to fill multiple books with minutia details.  Those are just two glaring examples of lies, and lying that I guess yer cool with ??

 

Goooo my team !!!!  Right?

[JimmyJames 12271]

I still don’t understand the Republican play here, unless they actually believe they will be able to keep the Mueller report, in this day and age, somehow a secret. 

Its becoming increasingly clear that bringing Barr in was like bringing in the “wolf” in pulp fiction. He was brought in to clean up a bloody mess. 

The only problem is this is 2019, not 1994, and Bonnie had a video camera installed monitoring the house and will be coming home to watch it. 

Release the damn report already. Just get the pain over with criminals. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

If you hate liars then how do you even vote  ?  Is it degrees of lies or just the lies you like or don't like ?  Your answer is so empty, I don't know if you're even being serious.  Trump is the worst lying president ?  Tell me how old were you the Mr. Obama said you can keep your doctor, or you'll get $2,500 in savings every year (dozens and dozens of times).  Those lies didn't bug you ?  Mrs. Clinton lying about classified material being on her private server, her continual memory loss when ever questioned about anything under oath, but her ability to fill multiple books with minutia details.  Those are just two glaring examples of lies, and lying that I guess yer cool with ??

 

Goooo my team !!!!  Right?

So weak not gonna bother to respond. 

Carry on. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

So weak not gonna bother to respond. 

Carry on. 

Sure it was. Sucks when people put your own hypocritical BS back in your face.  Carry on .

[David Dennison 18656]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

If you hate liars then how do you even vote  ?  Is it degrees of lies or just the lies you like or don't like ?  Your answer is so empty, I don't know if you're even being serious.  Trump is the worst lying president ?  Tell me how old were you the Mr. Obama said you can keep your doctor, or you'll get $2,500 in savings every year (dozens and dozens of times).  Those lies didn't bug you ?  Mrs. Clinton lying about classified material being on her private server, her continual memory loss when ever questioned about anything under oath, but her ability to fill multiple books with minutia details.  Those are just two glaring examples of lies, and lying that I guess yer cool with ??

Goooo my team !!!!  Right?

Yes. You're finally understanding politics.

But you support Donald Trump. A buffoon and con man. You are proud of this. 

That is shameful.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Yes. You're finally understanding politics.

But you support Donald Trump. A buffoon and con man. You are proud of this. 

That is shameful.

Yeah I opposed Hillary Clinton, but you can't seen to grasp that concept sock boy.

[David Dennison 18656]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah I opposed Hillary Clinton, but you can't seen to grasp that concept sock boy.

Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

You support a bigot for president.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

 

13 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I still don’t understand the Republican play here, unless they actually believe they will be able to keep the Mueller report, in this day and age, somehow a secret. 

Its becoming increasingly clear that bringing Barr in was like bringing in the “wolf” in pulp fiction. He was brought in to clean up a bloody mess. 

The only problem is this is 2019, not 1994, and Bonnie had a video camera installed monitoring the house and will be coming home to watch it. 

Release the damn report already. Just get the pain over with criminals. 

You have clearly convinced yourself. Carry on. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

 

You have clearly convinced yourself. Carry on. 

Do you want the report released or not? I bet your position is the Barr drink napkin “report” exonerated trump so no need to see the actual report itself. You’re such an obvious troll fraud. You should log out and then log in and have Chrispy like your posts some more. 

[retread 2951]

38 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Back in 1992, Barr was coined “The Coverup-General” in a NYTs editorial.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/19/opinion/essay-the-patsy-prosecutor.html

Another aricle re Barr and Iraqgate/Iran-Contra. GHWB's strategy to save Weinberger and others was to pardon them on Christmas eve, on the advice of Barr.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/26/has-cover-general-william-barr-struck-again

Quote

Published on
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
by Common Dreams
Has "Cover-Up General" William Barr Struck Again?
Barr's history of helping Republican presidents in legal crises may explain why Trump brought him back in to head the Justice Department

byThom Hartmann
 17 Comments

William Barr with President George H.W. Bush in 1991, after Mr. Barr was sworn as U.S. Attorney General.

Back in 1992, the last time Bill Barr was U.S. attorney general, iconic New York Times writer William Safire referred to him as “Coverup-General Barr” because of his role in burying evidence of then-President George H.W. Bush’s involvement in “Iraqgate” and “Iron-Contra.”

General Barr has struck again—this time, in similar fashion, burying Mueller’s report and cherry-picking fragments of sentences from it to justify Trump’s behavior. In his letter, he notes that Robert Mueller “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.”

As attorney general, Barr—without showing us even a single complete sentence from the Mueller report—decided there are no crimes here. Just keep moving along.

Barr’s history of doing just this sort of thing to help Republican presidents in legal crises explains why Trump brought him back in to head the Justice Department.

Christmas day of 1992, the New York Times featured a screaming all-caps headline across the top of its front page: Attorney General Bill Barr had covered up evidence of crimes by Reagan and Bush in the Iran-Contra scandal.

Earlier that week of Christmas, 1992, George H.W. Bush was on his way out of office. Bill Clinton had won the White House the month before, and in a few weeks would be sworn in as president.

But Bush’s biggest concern wasn’t that he’d have to leave the White House to retire back to Connecticut, Maine, or Texas (where he had homes) but, rather, that he may end up embroiled even deeper in Iran-Contra and that his colleagues may face time in a federal prison after he left office.

Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh was closing in fast on him, and Bush’s private records, subpoenaed by the independent counsel’s office, were the key to it all.

Walsh had been appointed independent counsel in 1986 to investigate the Iran-Contra activities of the Reagan administration and determine if crimes had been committed.

Was the Iran-Contra criminal conspiracy limited, as Reagan and Bush insisted (and Reagan confessed on TV), to later years in the Reagan presidency, in response to a hostage-taking in Lebanon? Or had it started in the 1980 campaign with collusion with the Iranians, as the then-president of Iran asserted? Who knew what, and when? And what was George H.W. Bush’s role in it all?

Walsh had zeroed in on documents that were in the possession of Reagan’s former defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, who all the evidence showed was definitely in on the deal, and President Bush’s diary that could corroborate it. Elliott Abrams had already been convicted of withholding evidence from Congress, and he may have even more information, too, if it could be pried out of him before he went to prison. But Abrams was keeping mum, apparently anticipating a pardon.

Weinberger, trying to avoid jail himself, was preparing to testify that Bush knew about it and even participated, and Walsh had already, based on information he’d obtained from the investigation into Weinberger, demanded that Bush turn over his diary from the campaign. He was also again hot on the trail of Abrams.

So Bush called in his attorney general, Bill Barr, and asked his advice.

Barr, along with Bush, was already up to his eyeballs in cover-ups of shady behavior by the Reagan administration.

Safire ultimately came refer to Barr as “Coverup-General” in the midst of another scandal—one having to do with Bush selling weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein—as the Attorney General was already covering up for Bush, Weinberger, and others from the Reagan administration.

On October 19, 1992, Safire wrote of Barr’s unwillingness to appoint an independent counsel to look into Iraqgate:

“Why does the Coverup-General resist independent investigation? Because he knows where it may lead: to Dick Thornburgh, James Baker, Clayton Yeutter, Brent Scowcroft and himself [the people who organized the sale of WMD to Saddam]. He vainly hopes to be able to head it off, or at least be able to use the threat of firing to negotiate a deal.”

Now, just short of two months later, Bush was asking Barr for advice on how to avoid another very serious charge in the Iran-Contra crimes. How, he wanted to know, could they shut down Walsh’s investigation before Walsh’s lawyers got their hands on Bush’s diary?

In April of 2001, safely distant from the swirl of D.C. politics, the University of Virginia’s Miller Center was compiling oral presidential histories, and interviewed Barr about his time as AG in the Bush White House. They brought up the issue of the Weinberger pardon, which put an end to the Iran-Contra investigation, and Barr’s involvement in it.

Turns out, Barr was right in the middle of it.

“There were some people arguing just for [a pardon for] Weinberger, and I said, ‘No, in for a penny, in for a pound,’” Barr told the interviewer. “I went over and told the President I thought he should not only pardon Caspar Weinberger, but while he was at it, he should pardon about five others.”

Which is exactly what Bush did, on Christmas Eve when most Americans were with family instead of watching the news. The holiday notwithstanding, the result was explosive.

America knew that both Reagan and Bush were up to their necks in Iran-Contra, and Democrats had been talking about impeachment or worse. The independent counsel had already obtained one conviction, three guilty pleas, and two other individuals were lined up for prosecution. And Walsh was closing in fast on Bush himself.

photo5_13.png

So, when Bush shut the investigation down by pardoning not only Weinberger, but also Abrams and the others involved in the crimes, destroying Walsh’s ability to prosecute anybody, the New York Times ran the headline all the way across four of the six columns on the front page, screaming in all-caps: BUSH PARDONS 6 IN IRAN AFFAIR, ABORTING A WEINBERGER TRIAL; PROSECUTOR ASSAILS ‘COVER-UP.’

Bill Barr had struck.

The second paragraph of the Times story by David Johnston laid it out:

“Mr. Weinberger was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels, a case that was expected to focus on Mr. Weinberger’s private notes that contain references to Mr. Bush’s endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran.” (emphasis added)

History shows that when a Republican president is in serious legal trouble, Bill Barr is the go-to guy.

For William Safire, it was déjà vu all over again. Four months earlier, referring to Iraqgate (Bush’s selling WMDs to Iraq), Safire opened his article, titled “Justice [Department] Corrupts Justice,” by writing:

“U.S. Attorney General William Barr, in rejecting the House Judiciary Committee’s call for a prosecutor not beholden to the Bush Administration to investigate the crimes of Iraqgate, has taken personal charge of the cover-up.”

Safire accused Barr of not only rigging the cover-up, but of being one of the criminals who could be prosecuted.

“Mr. Barr,” wrote Safire in August of 1992, “...could face prosecution if it turns out that high Bush officials knew about Saddam Hussein’s perversion of our Agriculture export guarantees to finance his war machine.”

He added, “They [Barr and colleagues] have a keen personal and political interest in seeing to it that the Department of Justice stays in safe, controllable Republican hands.”

Earlier in Bush’s administration, Barr had succeeded in blocking the appointment of an investigator or independent counsel to look into Iraqgate, as Safire repeatedly documented in the Times. In December, Barr helped Bush block indictments from another independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, and eliminated any risk that Reagan or George H.W. Bush would be held to account for Iran-Contra.

Walsh, wrote Johnston for the Times on Christmas Eve, “plans to review a 1986 campaign diary kept by Mr. Bush.” The diary would be the smoking gun that would nail Bush to the scandal.

“But,” noted the Times, “in a single stroke, Mr. Bush [at Barr’s suggestion] swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases, virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh’s effort, which began in 1986.”

And Walsh didn’t take it lying down.

The Times report noted that, “Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President’s action, charging that ‘the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.’”

Independent Counsel Walsh added that the diary and notes he wanted to enter into a public trial of Weinberger represented, “evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public.”

The phrase “highest ranking” officials included Reagan, Bush and Barr.

Walsh had been fighting to get those documents ever since 1986, when he was appointed and Reagan still had two years left in office. Bush’s and Weinberger’s refusal to turn them over, Johnston noted in the Times, could have, in Walsh’s words, “forestalled impeachment proceedings against President Reagan” through a pattern of “deception and obstruction.”

Barr successfully covered up the involvement of two Republican presidents—Reagan and Bush—in two separate and perhaps impeachable “high crimes.” And months later, newly sworn-in President Clinton and the new Congress decided to put it all behind them and not pursue the matters any further.

Now, by cherry-picking Mueller’s report and handing Trump the talking points he needed, Barr has done it again.

The question this time is whether Congress will be as compliant as they were in 1993 and simply let it all go.

Both Trump and senior Republican leadership are already calling for a repeat of ’93; what remains to be seen is if the press and Democratic leadership will go along like they did back then.

This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.

Edited March 29, 2019 by retread

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

Another aricle re Barr and Iraqgate/Iran-Contra. GHWB's strategy to save Weinberger and others was to pardon them on Christmas eve, on the advice of Barr.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/26/has-cover-general-william-barr-struck-again

Barr was perfect for Trump. Credible enough to get confirmed by the Senate. Corrupt enough to cover up for Trump’s crimes. 

If the dems were republican rats they would hire the Russians to hack into Barr’s computer and get the report that way. One can debate why they wont, but they wont. Trump and Roger stone would have already contacted Russian intelligence by now to do so and started negotiating the terms. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Yes yes the last refuge of little pussies who can't deal with reality neg rep....    

 

JIMINY JAMES:  Waaaaah he said something I don't like...., waaaaah I'm gonna neg rep him. WAAAAAH HE MADE ME CRY

[Texas73 420]

Trump defamed Mueller for months. Why? Because Trump knows he is guilty. If Trump and his cohorts were innocent of collusion with Russia and he is innocent of obstruction of justice then he would welcome and support the fact finding mission of Mueller. 

[Fondren & Main 6670]

19 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

You support a bigot for president.

You’re delusional.  You’re the poster boy for groupthink.  What’s that like?

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yes yes the last refuge of little pussies who can't deal with reality neg rep....    

 

JIMINY JAMES:  Waaaaah he said something I don't like...., waaaaah I'm gonna neg rep him. WAAAAAH HE MADE ME CRY

You seem mad. You mad. Pay me $100 and I’ll take the neg back you whinny bitch. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yes yes the last refuge of little pussies who can't deal with reality neg rep....    

 

JIMINY JAMES:  Waaaaah he said something I don't like...., waaaaah I'm gonna neg rep him. WAAAAAH HE MADE ME CRY

Lefties on this page neg me all the time.  I don’t neg on the politics board.   Unless someone negs me first.  Then I’ll neg every post they have in return until I run out of rep   

Jimmy is a giant pussy who negs all the time.  There are a bunch of pussy leftists here who neg when someone posts something they disagree with.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Lefties on this page neg me all the time.  I don’t neg on the politics board.   Unless someone negs me first.  Then I’ll neg every post they have in return until I run out of rep   

Jimmy is a giant pussy who negs all the time.  There are a bunch of pussy leftists here who neg when someone posts something they disagree with.  

Pretty sure I haven’t negged you in awhile sack. If I did I apologize. Since you are so thick skinned and swimming in the gold like Scrooge mcduck I’m sure you can deal with it. 

You still haven’t answered my question as to whether you are one of the majority of trolls on this board who voted for Gary Johnson. Do you respectfully decline to answer? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Wonder if there’s anything in the Mueller report about the Russians fucking with the GOP primaries. 

[Junior Miller 1502]

You miserable trump fucks ruin everything you touch here. Can't even read these threads for actual info and Twitter posts anymore because of your incessant bitching, lies, and racist/biggot rants. Just die off or otherwise go away already. 

[Junior Miller 1502]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Wonder if there’s anything in the Mueller report about the Russians fucking with the GOP primaries. 

If the entire thing isn't released in whole then you know it's just a political cover-up. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Wonder if there’s anything in the Mueller report about the Russians fucking with the GOP primaries. 

Hadn’t thought about that. What makes you say that? 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Lefties on this page neg me all the time.  I don’t neg on the politics board.   Unless someone negs me first.  Then I’ll neg every post they have in return until I run out of rep   

Jimmy is a giant pussy who negs all the time.  There are a bunch of pussy leftists here who neg when someone posts something they disagree with.  

Says the guy who negged Jack Straw for making a positive comment on the food board.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Pretty sure I haven’t negged you in awhile sack. If I did I apologize. Since you are so thick skinned and swimming in the gold like Scrooge mcduck I’m sure you can deal with it. 

You still haven’t answered my question as to whether you are one of the majority of trolls on this board who voted for Gary Johnson. Do you respectfully decline to answer? 

I didn’t vote for Trump.  I regret that now and will to my dying day.  I will be voting for him in 2018.  I think he’s overall doing an outstanding job running the country both on foreign policy and domestically.  Despite having democrats and media — both who have gone off the reservation so far left to the point Bill Clinton wouldn’t make it to Super Tuesday — going all in against him.  This Russia hoax is exhibit A.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Lefties on this page neg me all the time.  I don’t neg on the politics board.   Unless someone negs me first.  Then I’ll neg every post they have in return until I run out of rep   

Jimmy is a giant pussy who negs all the time.  There are a bunch of pussy leftists here who neg when someone posts something they disagree with.  

I don't think I've ever neg repped somebody in the CR unless it was totally a sarcastic joking rep. The guy rarely does anything but make snarky comments or inane comments like I hate liars or just neg reps people.  When you don't have an actual argument it's all you can do.

I'ma neg rep you, you said things I don't like.... yer a meanie....

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Says the guy who negged Jack Straw for making a positive comment on the food board.

After he negged me on politics.  When someone does that, I’m going to neg them back on every post I can until I run out of rep.  Because you have to be a cunt to neg someone on the politics board.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

I didn’t vote for Trump.  I regret that now and will to my dying day.  I will be voting for him in 2018.  I think he’s overall doing an outstanding job running the country both on foreign policy and domestically.  Despite having democrats and media — both who have gone off the reservation so far left to the point Bill Clinton wouldn’t make it to Super Tuesday — going all in against him.  This Russia hoax is exhibit A.  

Wow. You are a worse person than I ever imagined.  Someone who didn’t vote for trump in 2016 but will definitely do so in 2020. That’s fucking amazing. Are you really a real person? Because I’m having a Swam actually went to UT moment here. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

After he negged me on politics.  When someone does that, I’m going to neg them back on every post I can until I run out of rep.  Because you have to be a cunt to neg someone on the politics board.  

What standards and ethics you have. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Wow. You are a worse person than I ever imagined.  Someone who didn’t vote for trump in 2016 but will definitely do so in 2020. That’s fucking amazing. Are you really a real person? Because I’m having a Swam actually went to UT moment here. 

He’s doing a very good job.  And he’s politically moderate.  democrats are going to put up a far left extremist.  

[brown water 3761]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

After he negged me on politics.  When someone does that, I’m going to neg them back on every post I can until I run out of rep.  Because you have to be a cunt to neg someone on the politics board.  

Negged. What happens in CR stays in CR

Edited March 29, 2019 by brown water

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Says the guy who negged Jack Straw for making a positive comment on the food board.

He’s a Republican. Its only a bad neg if someone else does it. When he does it, reasons...

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

What standards and ethics you have. 

I’m not a pussy like you who negs people I disagree with.  I only neg politics if someone negs me first.  Because fuck anyone who negs on the politics. 

I disagree with pretty much everything you post. And Fondren. And Bolverk. And Dennison.  I’d never neg you for posting your opinion. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

He’s a Republican. Its only a bad neg if someone else does it. When he does it, reasons...

You should be defensive.  You’re the biggest cunt negger on this board.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I’m not a pussy like you who negs people I disagree with.  I only neg politics if someone negs me first.  Because fuck anyone who negs on the politics. 

I disagree with pretty much everything you post. And Fondren. And Bolverk. And Dennison.  I’d never neg you for posting your opinion. 

I’ve posted I like Vince Young. Do you disagree with that too? 

Stop acting like you’re some above it all poster. You’ve negged me just as much as I have you. And if I have negged your more, I apologize and will give you some rep if you finally start posting something that comes close to deserving it. Because you basically only post troll right wing bullshit constantly, at least on this section of the board. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

21 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I didn’t vote for Trump.  I regret that now and will to my dying day.  I will be voting for him in 2018.  I think he’s overall doing an outstanding job running the country both on foreign policy and domestically.  Despite having democrats and media — both who have gone off the reservation so far left to the point Bill Clinton wouldn’t make it to Super Tuesday — going all in against him.  This Russia hoax is exhibit A.  

You’ve yet to name a single issue, domestic or foreign, that you support and your reasoning for said support. You’re incapable of defending any firm position you take because you’re a mouthbreathing moron.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You’ve yet to name a single issue, domestic or foreign, that you support and your reasoning for said support. You’re incapable of defending any firm position you take because you’re a mouthbreathing moron.

I’m pretty sure he’s advocated cutting off all government assistance to the poor. Probably so they are forced to continue to live in one of his slums. Or maybe he supports some assistance to the poor so they can keep on living in his slums. He hasn’t made that clear. He does think the browns pay better than the blacks. That much at least is clear.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

I’m pretty sure he’s advocated cutting off all government assistance to the poor. Probably so they are forced to continue to live in one of his slums. Or maybe he supports some assistance to the poor so they can keep on living in his slums. He hasn’t made that clear. He does think the browns pay better than the blacks. That much at least is clear.

He once said “Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria is good for America.” That was the extent of his analysis. Of course, when that decision was reversed, he couldn’t muster the courage to discuss it. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

He once said “Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria is good for America.” That was the extent of his analysis. Of course, when that decision was reversed, he couldn’t muster the courage to discuss it. 

I really can’t recall a single substantive post from the dude. Just nothing but bullshit designed to piss someone off. 

[Gatorubet 30104]

9 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's inexcusable when the press reports things they haven't vetted. They in fact become enemies of the citizens of the nation thru reckless, self serving reporting of un substantiated fact. 

You "in fact" are a traitor.  Who supports traitors. You support the most dishonest POTUS in modern history, a man who denies that Russia attacked this country he is sworn to protect - all because his ego did not want anyone to say that Russian's working 24/7 for his election could be said to take away form his electoral win.

And you are fine with that. Because you are a traitor, like Trump.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

You "in fact" are a traitor.  Who supports traitors. You support the most dishonest POTUS in modern history, a man who denies that Russia attacked this country he is sworn to protect - all because his ego did not want anyone to say that Russian's working 24/7 for his election could be said to take away form his electoral win.

And you are fine with that. Because you are a traitor, like Trump.

 

Fuck you herpes, dick breath. You throw the word traitor around  and you'd have voted for Hillary Clinton you're a literal hypocritical POS.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You "in fact" are a traitor.  Who supports traitors. You support the most dishonest POTUS in modern history, a man who denies that Russia attacked this country he is sworn to protect - all because his ego did not want anyone to say that Russian's working 24/7 for his election could be said to take away form his electoral win.

And you are fine with that. Because you are a traitor, like Trump.

 

You supported the traitors who brought us the Russian hoax.  Because you pussies couldn’t take the loss.  

Cry babies.  The lot of you. 

[Gatorubet 30104]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah I opposed Hillary Clinton, but you can't seen to grasp that concept sock boy.

You support a fake Christian and fake patriot who does not give a shit about any norm of decency so long as his petty goals are met.  The Country could be sold to Russia so long as Donald gets a big parade or statue.   Never has a more worthless POTUS been supported by more people for being the worse example of a father, husband, church member, Patriot, pick it, so long as you get a SCOTUS appointment and Team GOP is hurrahed.     Who knew that the Tea Party was the death knell of actual Patriotism in this country?