The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Gil Bang 25865]

"perjury trap"

 

what a concept.  

 

How about, DON'T FUCKING LIE AND THEN NOBODY CAN TRAP SHIT!

 

 

[Mdhorn 5908]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

"perjury trap"

 

what a concept.  

 

How about, DON'T FUCKING LIE AND THEN NOBODY CAN TRAP SHIT!

 

 

It's like that gotcha trap the Liberal elites used against Sara Palin asking her which magazines she read.  When will the libtards learn, questions only lead to lies.  

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

Are corporations people or not?

Sometimes. It all depends on the circumstances and whatnot.

[Loco 3752]

8 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

"perjury trap"

 

what a concept.  

 

How about, DON'T FUCKING LIE AND THEN NOBODY CAN TRAP SHIT!

 

 

Fucking this ^

Tell the truth or take the 5th

[Incredulity 11532]

Except for the previously established standard of sex with subordinates.  No one really cares about that, until they really, really do.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11796]

27 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Except for the previously established standard of sex with subordinates.  No one really cares about that, until they really, really do.

Well let's move on with impeachment then, like what happened in that case.  You game?

[Tuco 5076]

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

From jump on this thread, going back to the old place, I have pretty much confined my comments and discussion to legal aspects of it, not the political.  If that's pedantic, well sorry, that's about all I'm interested in here.  There's numerous other threads to participate in for more generalized Trump bashing.  Not that Trump doesn't deserve bashing, it just bores me.  I'm a technician in this sense.  Engineer first, lawyer second, but a technician always.

...

I realize there's a huge political impact and influence in all of this, it might be more than I can bear to be blunt.  I'm kind of bummed that all this legal maneuvering is kind of for naught because Trump will ultimately face only impeachment, I think.

My comment on your analysis wasn't intended to be criticism of ignoring the shitshowness of the administration.  When I refer to the "politics" of it, I am addressing 1) the ability of Mueller to continue his investigation against the wishes of the administration and many in Congress, and 2) what is the ultimate perception of the investigation. I believe those elements play a major factor in the decisions "Bob and Rosy" (I like that) make.  Someone posted a commencement speech Mueller had where he said something to the effect, of "we [the FBI] must be objective and be perceived to be objective."  Not only is he being personally attack, the whole concept of law enforcement in America is - from the acting Attorney General down to the individual FBI agents.  If he has the ability to reduce the impact of those attacks, he will.  Where there is legal leeway, he's going to pick the path with the least political damage.  If he had the legal leeway to kick Cohen to SDNY, he would, even if he still has some interest in him from the Russian perspective.

So, my point is that if you look at the decisions strictly through a legal lens - looking at what Mueller could do or what prosecutors typically do - your analysis and predictions will be flawed. You have to consider the political aspects - how Bob and Rosy are going to avoid the political pitfalls. It's not a question of being pedantic; it's a question of being incomplete in your analysis.  I don't care if you pile on Trump or not.

[Incredulity 11532]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Well let's move on with impeachment then, like what happened in that case.  You game?

sure.  guess what, the result will be similar.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

37 minutes ago, Tuco said:

My comment on your analysis wasn't intended to be criticism of ignoring the shitshowness of the administration.  When I refer to the "politics" of it, I am addressing 1) the ability of Mueller to continue his investigation against the wishes of the administration and many in Congress, and 2) what is the ultimate perception of the investigation. I believe those elements play a major factor in the decisions "Bob and Rosy" (I like that) make.  Someone posted a commencement speech Mueller had where he said something to the effect, of "we [the FBI] must be objective and be perceived to be objective."  Not only is he being personally attack, the whole concept of law enforcement in America is - from the acting Attorney General down to the individual FBI agents.  If he has the ability to reduce the impact of those attacks, he will.  Where there is legal leeway, he's going to pick the path with the least political damage.  If he had the legal leeway to kick Cohen to SDNY, he would, even if he still has some interest in him from the Russian perspective.

So, my point is that if you look at the decisions strictly through a legal lens - looking at what Mueller could do or what prosecutors typically do - your analysis and predictions will be flawed. You have to consider the political aspects - how Bob and Rosy are going to avoid the political pitfalls. It's not a question of being pedantic; it's a question of being incomplete in your analysis.  I don't care if you pile on Trump or not.

Oh agreed.  Probably at the old place I mentioned that I thought Mueller was conscious of exceeding his mandate and had every incentive to confine his investigation, and more importantly prosecutions, not to "wherever it leads," but rather to places where a tangible conflict exists between Trump and his appointees and the defendants or actions in question.

And, the more I think about it, he may have pushed the envelope a little on the Manafort deal and, as a result of the optics, kicked Cohen.  The principal conflict in both cases being the rather close association between the two targets and Trump, rather than the criminal actions.  I suppose we shall see.

And, as a lawyer, I don't see that having to dismiss one or both of the corporate defendants in the "Russian" case as being that big a deal, but the Trumpkins are sure to scream about it and it does seem to have been something of a blunder.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11796]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

sure.  guess what, the result will be similar.

Probably.  

[Dolemite 143]

About That FBI ‘Source’

Quote

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

 

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?

And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.

We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply.

 

I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-that-fbi-source-1525992611

Edited May 11, 2018 by Dolemite

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

Get that guy a jump to conclusions mat.  

[Jack Burton 35]

that article sucks

[TwiceHorn 31184]

Certainly, in the FBI vs. Trump vs. congressional nincompoops scenario, we kinda like the FBI.  But, in the grander scheme, that's kind of like preferring Kreutzfeld-Jacobs over Ebola.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

35 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

that article sucks

Kimberley Strassel is positioning herself to be in a time slot between Tucker and Hannity. She has started to chug the Trump kool-aid. Lots of money to be had once you get the Dolemites of the world eating out of the palm of your hand. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Lagunamadre

[Tuco 5076]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, as a lawyer, I don't see that having to dismiss one or both of the corporate defendants in the "Russian" case as being that big a deal, but the Trumpkins are sure to scream about it and it does seem to have been something of a blunder.

Particularly since there would be nothing barring him from dropping the charges now and taking another run at them 12 months from now, after other priorities have been addressed.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Certainly, in the FBI vs. Trump vs. congressional nincompoops scenario, we kinda like the FBI.  But, in the grander scheme, that's kind of like preferring Kreutzfeld-Jacobs over Ebola.

I'm gonna go with Ebola between those two.  Quicker.

The FBI is far from perfect.  The issue that Trump, and GOP, adversaries have had is that they have to operate completely perfectly.  The right has successfully pushed the narrative that hypocrisy is worse than the crime.  If you're looking to weed out corruption, you can have none.  If you're looking to stop widescale sexual assault, you can't have an accuser who says you touched her ass.  On the flip side if you are 100% okay with corruption and sexual assault, then you are free to do both or either, and nobody else can say shit about it because they did something slightly bad as well.  Even the slightest mishap by the FBI, and Fox News can throw the whole thing under the bus and exonerate Trump.

Edited May 11, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Hefeweizen 5307]

Kimberley Strassel is positioning herself to be in a time slot between Tucker and Hannity. She has started to check the Trump kool-aid. Lots of money to be had once you get the Dolemites of the world eating out of the palm of your hand. 

Their editorial page and Strassel particularly is why my subscription lapsed e without renewal.

[Tuco 5076]

50 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Get that guy a jump to conclusions mat.  

No shit.  According to the article, if it's a source, it has to be a plant.  That's patently absurd.  And then she bases a pre-Papi timeline off that ridiculous assumption. 

I actually use to get the Wall Street Journal.  There was some really solid reporting, more detailed than you get from most any daily.  Yeah, the editorial staff was always more conservative than I am, but they were certainly smart.  Now it's just FoxNews bullshit in a more credible wrapper.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

9 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

12 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Kimberley Strassel is positioning herself to be in a time slot between Tucker and Hannity. She has started to check the Trump kool-aid. Lots of money to be had once you get the Dolemites of the world eating out of the palm of your hand. 

Their editorial page and Strassel particularly is why my subscription lapsed e without renewal.

I just love when the Trumpkins run over to here to prove that they "win" with links to ultra-conservative editorials, like we will all think because it's from the WSJ it is actually news. 

Trump's base needs to brush up on the difference between news articles and editorials. 

[Tuco 5076]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Certainly, in the FBI vs. Trump vs. congressional nincompoops scenario, we kinda like the FBI.  But, in the grander scheme, that's kind of like preferring Kreutzfeld-Jacobs over Ebola.

Well, there is a difference between the cop in your rear-view mirror and the one who shows up when your house is being robbed.  Might be the same guy, but you certainly see him differently. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I'm gonna go with Ebola between those two.  Quicker.

The FBI is far from perfect.  The issue that Trump, and GOP, adversaries have had is that they have to operate completely perfectly.  The right has successfully pushed the narrative that hypocrisy is worse than the crime.  If you're looking to weed out corruption, you can have none.  If you're looking to stop widescale sexual assault, you can't have an accuser who says you touched her ass.  On the flip side if you are 100% okay with corruption and sexual assault, then you are free to do both or either, and nobody else can say shit about it because they did something slightly bad as well.  Even the slightest mishap by the FBI, and Fox News can throw the whole thing under the bus and exonerate Trump.

Oh no question.  But, in the grander scheme, we should pay attention to targets of investigation and defendants to keep the FBI honest and on its toes.  And, much as it pains me to admit, congressional oversight of the FBI is important (congress is really on my shit list at the moment).

[wildcat09 29187]

13 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Kimberley Strassel is positioning herself to be in a time slot between Tucker and Hannity. She has started to check the Trump kool-aid. Lots of money to be had once you get the Dolemites of the world eating out of the palm of your hand. 

And all you've got to do is occasionally get an intelligence source killed!

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3867]

12 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

No he’s not. His trolling sucks. It’s like he’s on the comments section of Fox News.

Swam was a master troller. I’ve never seen one better. Had everyone convinced he was a UT alum, hell maybe he is, and had completely mastered the start new thread hit and run troll tactic. The guy says he was a teacher. He could teach us all about the art of trolling. He was the yoda Jedi of trolling. 

He is exactly who he says he is. His last avatar at Shag showed himself in his swimming days at UT. I was a few years ahead of him in the same private school. I google searched XYZ swimming coach and saw the newspaper articles that matched up to Swam's employment complaints/history on the Shag.  Would be one hell of a long game troll to impersonate him in that detail for that long.

Edited May 11, 2018 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Swam, like Clear Lake Horn, wasn’t a troll in the pure spirit of the word. They are passionate imbeciles.  

The true trolls don’t actually believe the material they use to generate emotional reactions, they just pretend like they do.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Federal investigators are reportedly looking into donations to President Trump's inauguration from donors with links to foreign entities. 

Sources told ABC News that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has questioned several inauguration donors with personal or business connections to Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Mueller's team has also interviewed longtime Trump friend Tom Barrack, who oversaw the inauguration fundraising efforts, and also operates a fund with hundreds of millions in real estate and other holdings in the Middle East.

Barrack brought in more than $107 million for Trump's inauguration.

Multiple donors who gave up to $1 million to the Trump inauguration fund have links to the named countries, according to public records reviewed by ABC.

Mueller's team has reportedly been asking witnesses about Leonard Blavatnik and Andrew Intrater, two American businessmen who made major donations to the inauguration and have business ties to Russia, according to ABC News.

Mueller is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and has so far indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian groups on charges related to meddling in the election.

He has also charged a number of former Trump campaign officials on criminal financial charges unrelated to their work on the campaign.

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Federal investigators are reportedly looking into donations to President Trump's inauguration from donors with links to foreign entities. 

Sources told ABC News that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has questioned several inauguration donors with personal or business connections to Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Mueller's team has also interviewed longtime Trump friend Tom Barrack, who oversaw the inauguration fundraising efforts, and also operates a fund with hundreds of millions in real estate and other holdings in the Middle East.

Barrack brought in more than $107 million for Trump's inauguration.

Multiple donors who gave up to $1 million to the Trump inauguration fund have links to the named countries, according to public records reviewed by ABC.

Mueller's team has reportedly been asking witnesses about Leonard Blavatnik and Andrew Intrater, two American businessmen who made major donations to the inauguration and have business ties to Russia, according to ABC News.

Mueller is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and has so far indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian groups on charges related to meddling in the election.

He has also charged a number of former Trump campaign officials on criminal financial charges unrelated to their work on the campaign.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Pods 7522]

4 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

Kimberley Strassel is positioning herself to be in a time slot between Tucker and Hannity. She has started to chug the Trump kool-aid. Lots of money to be had once you get the Dolemites of the world eating out of the palm of your hand. 

Check out her Twitter account. 

She has this as her background.

 

Dolemite couldn't have posted a more biased source if he tried. 

Narrator: He had tried. That morning, Dolemite had spent 4.5 hours fruitlessly reading the Daily Caller and Fox News before finding this article on his third pass of Breitbart. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Pods

[Poolflood 845]

This Leonard  Blavatnik is a rich dude.  Shocked he hasn't been wining/dining American political class and showering them with money for decades.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

It's amazing how the left is able to impose its will on the poor victims on the right, who merely control the entire government.    Kind of like how it's amazing that the left has managed to destroy everything good in America, during the Republican Revolution.  

[FUBAR 4]

17 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Flynn was an unregistered paid agent of Turkey and Russia.

He was also outed as a Russian asset by the Deputy Attorney General who testified under oath publicly that he was susceptible to blackmail by the Russians.

But don’t let these facts hurt your feelings.

Facts I respect. I’ll give you kudos for that. Interesting to me to see what ever happens  in this multi-year crapfest. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5104]

5 hours ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

He is exactly who he says he is. His last avatar at Shag showed himself in his swimming days at UT. I was a few years ahead of him in the same private school. I google searched XYZ swimming coach and saw the newspaper articles that matched up to Swam's employment complaints/history on the Shag.  Would be one hell of a long game troll to impersonate him in that detail for that long.

Yeah if you look back at Swam in the hornfan days, he was a typical conservative poster.  I agreed with him quite a bit.  Somewhere he took a turn towards the deep end, and we've been watching him approach it and then hit the gas as he went off the deep end since early shag days.  He definitely appears to believe the nonsense he spouts.  Its been amazing to watch.

Its either that or I used to be a right wing kook and I worked my way out of it.  

[Ted Lange 15991]

11 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's amazing how the left is able to impose its will on the poor victims on the right, who merely control the entire government.    Kind of like how it's amazing that the left has managed to destroy everything good in America, during the Republican Revolution.  

Do you even Soros bro?

[Gil Bang 25865]

Yeah if you look back at Swam in the hornfan days, he was a typical conservative poster.  I agreed with him quite a bit.  Somewhere he took a turn towards the deep end, and we've been watching him approach it and then hit the gas as he went off the deep end since early shag days.  He definitely appears to believe the nonsense he spouts.  Its been amazing to watch.
Its either that or I used to be a right wing kook and I worked my way out of it.  

HIs “unskew the polls” stuff was his finest work.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yeah if you look back at Swam in the hornfan days, he was a typical conservative poster.  I agreed with him quite a bit.  Somewhere he took a turn towards the deep end, and we've been watching him approach it and then hit the gas as he went off the deep end since early shag days.  He definitely appears to believe the nonsense he spouts.  Its been amazing to watch.

Its either that or I used to be a right wing kook and I worked my way out of it.  

The early Shag days coinciding with the first black president being elected.   A lot of people went off the deep end.   But it wasn't racial, of course; just too much golf and not enough government experience.  

[jimmyjazz 45513]

20 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yeah if you look back at Swam in the hornfan days, he was a typical conservative poster.  I agreed with him quite a bit.  Somewhere he took a turn towards the deep end, and we've been watching him approach it and then hit the gas as he went off the deep end since early shag days.  He definitely appears to believe the nonsense he spouts.  Its been amazing to watch.

Its either that or I used to be a right wing kook and I worked my way out of it.  

Becoming a drug addict does have its downside.

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yeah if you look back at Swam in the hornfan days, he was a typical conservative poster.  I agreed with him quite a bit.  Somewhere he took a turn towards the deep end, and we've been watching him approach it and then hit the gas as he went off the deep end since early shag days.  He definitely appears to believe the nonsense he spouts.  Its been amazing to watch.

Its either that or I used to be a right wing kook and I worked my way out of it.  

Exactly and I agree. Basically one of two things happened 1. A black guy became president and he went nuts or 2. The ruskies started paying him to troll as a well known poster on a popular site.

Or like old Forrest Gump said, maybe both of dem are happening at the same time.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3867]

^^^

3. Or personal life issues changed him.

I verified he is indeed teaching for the Navy.

Edited May 12, 2018 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[hayden_horn 11360]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Exactly and I agree. Basically one of two things happened 1. A black guy became president and he went nuts or 2. The ruskies started paying him to troll as a well known poster on a popular site.

Or like old Forrest Gump said, maybe both of dem are happening at the same time.

The Russians didnt pay him. He was swayed by those Russian trolls. It's a sign of a weak mind and his is that, given his issues. It's sad. 

He was always a sort of hateful cuss. I remember when circa 2008, he crowed about calling into Ed Clements' show at the time. Ed had said that out of all games that season, Lubbock at Halloween worried him the most. Ed's reason was "strange things happen in Lubbock on Halloween." Swam called in and told him he thought that because he know nothing about football. 

And he was proud of that. 

Yeah, about that. A strange thing happened that Halloween in Lubbock. 

[Mdhorn 5908]

8 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Federal investigators are reportedly looking into donations to President Trump's inauguration from donors with links to foreign entities. 

Sources told ABC News that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has questioned several inauguration donors with personal or business connections to Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Mueller's team has also interviewed longtime Trump friend Tom Barrack, who oversaw the inauguration fundraising efforts, and also operates a fund with hundreds of millions in real estate and other holdings in the Middle East.

Barrack brought in more than $107 million for Trump's inauguration.

Multiple donors who gave up to $1 million to the Trump inauguration fund have links to the named countries, according to public records reviewed by ABC.

Mueller's team has reportedly been asking witnesses about Leonard Blavatnik and Andrew Intrater, two American businessmen who made major donations to the inauguration and have business ties to Russia, according to ABC News.

Mueller is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and has so far indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian groups on charges related to meddling in the election.

He has also charged a number of former Trump campaign officials on criminal financial charges unrelated to their work on the campaign.

 

 

In a sense, Mueller is enacting his own sanctions which the Donald refuses to enact on the Russians.  

[Gatorubet 30064]

8 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yeah if you look back at Swam in the hornfan days, he was a typical conservative poster.  I agreed with him quite a bit.  Somewhere he took a turn towards the deep end, and we've been watching him approach it and then hit the gas as he went off the deep end since early shag days.  He definitely appears to believe the nonsense he spouts.  Its been amazing to watch.

Its either that or I used to be a right wing kook and I worked my way out of it.  

The pain from his war wound. It had to be that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

15 hours ago, Pods said:

Check out her Twitter account. 

She has this as her background.

 

Dolemite couldn't have posted a more biased source if he tried. 

Narrator: He had tried. That morning, Dolemite had spent 4.5 hours fruitlessly reading the Daily Caller and Fox News before finding this article on his third pass of Breitbart. 

 

They are so desperate.  

They are literally going with the defense of “Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else noticed?”

[atomheartbevo 89362]

16 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yeah if you look back at Swam in the hornfan days, he was a typical conservative poster.  I agreed with him quite a bit.  Somewhere he took a turn towards the deep end, and we've been watching him approach it and then hit the gas as he went off the deep end since early shag days.  He definitely appears to believe the nonsense he spouts.  Its been amazing to watch.

Its either that or I used to be a right wing kook and I worked my way out of it.  

Self-loathing when he started living by the saying “it’s not gay if you’re underway.”

[Judge Roybeanbag 11796]

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Self-loathing when he started living by the saying “it’s not gay if you’re underway.”

He’s so gay when they ask him for a sperm sample he farts in the cup.  

[SubliminalHorn 6648]

Swam has always been an insufferable prick. Never in his posting career have I thought, yeah this guy gets it. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

14 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Exactly and I agree. Basically one of two things happened 1. A black guy became president and he went nuts or 2. The ruskies started paying him to troll as a well known poster on a popular site.

Or like old Forrest Gump said, maybe both of dem are happening at the same time.

 

14 hours ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

^^^

3. Or personal life issues changed him.

I verified he is indeed teaching for the Navy.

I think 1 and 3.  He posted about his personal issues.  But he's also one of many who went nuts when Obama became Pres who were probably tolerable under Clinton and would have been tolerable had Hillary won in 2008.  This is the same guy who used Obama's middle name every time he posted.  Also, while you see a lot of pure anti-Hillary vitriol from guys like onboard, you don't from swam. He was mostly anti-Obama. 

All that being said, swam was always an asshole. Even with W in power.  Brisket, washpark, and LL were the policy conservatives on west mall. Swam was always down there with horn6531 and coffedillon.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5104]

Shit maybe I just agreed more with the bombs he threw back then. 

[Pods 7522]

2 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Shit maybe I just agreed more with the bombs he threw back then. 

If you did, you're one of the only ones. Swam has always been nuttier than two squirrels in a tube sock fighting over an acorn and just about as angry. 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Pods

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Jack Straw 2953]

Regardless of the cause or reason, Swam is a huge piece of shit who offers nothing of value whatsoever to anyone or anything.  The world gets worse every day that he wakes up.