LOL. I guess that settles it.
Of course, the implausibility of the accusations in question is irrelevant to the question actually being debated. The Transparency Act doesn't specify that only plausible documents should be released.
If the Tweeter really has the scoop, why doesn't she identify the accuser? This is just unsubstantiated explicit claims about someone who is (supposedly) making unsubstantiated explicit claims.
Tangent... Evidently Hillary was asked about Pizzagate. If that's the case, then nothing should be off the table.
She’s the author of The Guardian article mentioned. Good grief
You're so obviously wrong, I just don't understand you any longer.
It's really not that hard. Like Trump, COH is never wrong. (And if he is, it's time to change the subject or obfuscate.) Once he's staked out a position on any subject, be it law or politics or HVAC, COH's is the last word on the subject. Period.
His reading of the statute is tortured and inane. I think that, on some level, he must realize that by now but instead of acknowledging his mistake or just quietly moving on to something else, he doubles down. That tells me that engaging with him is a waste of time. One prop, though. At least he's civil, unlike a few of the other posters here who share his ideology, including the poster playing a creepy, Mrs. Doubtfire-type role who seems to have, thankfully, gone away.
I’m 100% correct. There is no way congress can write a law demanding the Attorney Generalof the United States release unsubstantiated allegations of a crime without those allegations being tested in the ways I mentioned. It doesn’t matter if Trump or Jack the Ripper is the accused.
Those who disagree with this simple and well established principle suffer from some kind of Trump Derangement Syndrome . Just like those 7 trained and experienced jurists who got the immunity question so wrong, you are reading Trump into every aspect of your analysis.
including the poster playing a creepy, Mrs. Doubtfire-type role who seems to have, thankfully, gone away.
It's a gag, dude. Everyone knows its McMurt. Who were you at Rivals?
Completely exonerated.
That Bill wasn't there for Trump's abuse of the 13-year-old means it never could have happened? Strange.
For most right-thinking people, the mere effort to go to such great lengths to protect a bunch of awful men, even if Trump were not among the abusers, is completely despicable on the part of Trump, Bondi, and Trump's whole band of butt-kissers.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
This thread is a fun read. Norm is funnier though.
https://twitter.com/normposter/status/2027081418539421786
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Accusations aren't proof of guilt, but removing the accusations are pretty solid indications of trying to cover up the accusations for the President.
DOJ removed, withheld Epstein files related to accusations about Trump : NPR
The fact that they thought it was better to defy a court order and try to hide it proves that they think it is incriminating enough to warrant taking the risk of being caught
I’m 100% correct. There is no way congress can write a law demanding the Attorney Generalof the United States release unsubstantiated allegations of a crime without those allegations being tested in the ways I mentioned. It doesn’t matter if Trump or Jack the Ripper is the accused.
Those who disagree with this simple and well established principle suffer from some kind of Trump Derangement Syndrome . Just like those 7 trained and experienced jurists who got the immunity question so wrong, you are reading Trump into every aspect of your analysis.
Having to defend incriminating pedo evidence for your lord and savior trump must be exhausting. How many times a week do you have to ask a priest for forgiveness?
Having to defend incriminating pedo evidence for your lord and savior trump must be exhausting. How many times a week do you have to ask a priest for forgiveness?
I've read a lot about Reagan's presidency. He carried 49 states (mind-blowing) in 1984 and was obviously enormously popular with Pubs, Independents and "Reagan Democrats" but there wasn't anything close to the idolatry that we see with Trump. The New York Times had a great piece a couple of weeks ago about trump's unprecedented self-aggrandizement and the cult of personality that has flowed from it. (I'll link it below but it may be behind a paywall). From the NYT:
"He wants to be seen as superlative in every way — and flawed in no way. His first-term executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout wrote in her memoir that when she expressed concern one day that he seemed exhausted, she was remonstrated by Hope Hicks, the president’s close adviser: “Donald Trump is never tired and he is never sick.” To even question his health, Mr. Trump himself said in December, is “seditious, perhaps even treasonous."
Personality-driven politics serve to bind followers of a movement to their leader more than to any particular policy prescription, making his success or failure their own. Veneration and loyalty are central and ideology secondary. The leader is presented as infallible, uniquely qualified, even divinely delivered for this moment in history.
Mr. Trump has played to these themes since taking the national political stage. “I alone can fix it,” he declared when running in 2016. “I was saved by God to make America great again,” he said on being inaugurated again last year.
I’m 100% correct. There is no way congress can write a law demanding the Attorney Generalof the United States release unsubstantiated allegations of a crime without those allegations being tested in the ways I mentioned. It doesn’t matter if Trump or Jack the Ripper is the accused.
Those who disagree with this simple and well established principle suffer from some kind of Trump Derangement Syndrome . Just like those 7 trained and experienced jurists who got the immunity question so wrong, you are reading Trump into every aspect of your analysis.
If you think the law is unconstitutional, then you should have argued that the law is unconstitutional. But you didn't. Instead, you (laughably) argued that DOJ was following the law by blatantly not following the law. Changing tack now when you've been caught out just makes you look stubborn. For once in your life, just admit you had it wrong.
I agree Trump grabs too much credit. But his self-aggrandizement is a two-edged sword. He is also the most hated president and the hatred has left deep and disfiguring scars on many of our important institutions.
Latest Post: How do you deal with Islam? Our newest member: Ben Wiggins Recent Posts Unread Posts
