Politics Thread

[GoMuskies]

This video is AMAZING!!

https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchPeopleDieInside/comments/g6z08y/dr_birxs_reaction_when_president_trump_asks_his/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

What is going through here mind? "We are so incredibly fucked". "God dammit, I knew I should have taken that offer to work at J&J. My quarantine pad would be so great, and I wouldn't have to go to meetings and pretend this fucktard was smarter than a rock."

[Xville]

Of all the people here who pretend to reluctantly support Trump, you're my favorite. There is zero chance you would ever vote for anyone else.

You dont know me as well as you think you do. I'm not voting for trump this time, but I probably wont be voting for senile joe either.

Just because I dont blame every single thing that is wrong in this country on trump like some in this country and on here do, does not mean I'm a trumper.

Case in point, I saw Kamala harris (who ran on what exactly?) Tweet and Indrectly blame the fact that some chili diner didnt get the ppp loan on trump because companies like his friends got it. I mean seriously come on. 1. Maybe shitty companies like Ruth's chris and shake shack shouldn't have applied for somethjng they were eligible for based on a technicality, and 2.) This was congress...blame them for their stupid shit without taking a swipe at trump for everything.

[boozehound]

You dont know me as well as you think you do. I'm not voting for trump this time, but I probably wont be voting for senile joe either.

Just because I dont blame every single thing that is wrong in this country on trump like some in this country and on here do, does not mean I'm a trumper.

Can somebody help me with this 'senile Joe' narrative? I just watched a guy who happens to be the President spew utter nonsense for 2 full minutes in a National news briefing that he (presumably) knew about in advance and had time to prepare for. We have all also spent the last 3+ years watching him say (and especially tweet) things that suggest a legitimate mental disability or brain injury of some sort.

I think it's strange that we are calling Biden the senile one.

[Xville]

Can somebody help me with this 'senile Joe' narrative? I just watched a guy who happens to be the President spew utter nonsense for 2 full minutes in a National news briefing that he (presumably) knew about in advance and had time to prepare for. We have all also spent the last 3+ years watching him say (and especially tweet) things that suggest a legitimate mental disability or brain injury of some sort.

I think it's strange that we are calling Biden the senile one.

Well, joe thinks he is running for a Senate seat to begin with.

I think your point is a fair one though, i think they are both senile.

Frankly, I'm just sick of voting for the person whom I deem to be the lesser of two evils, and I'm just not going to do it anymore.

As an aside, I have family members who were elected officials at the state and federal levels in the very recent past, and quite frankly, it's hard for me to vote for anyone. Everyone is so bought and paid for and the stories I have heard, have left me pretty disenchanted with all of it.

[xavierj]

Of all the people here who pretend to reluctantly support Trump, you're my favorite. There is zero chance you would ever vote for anyone else.

The thing is, if Trump were democrat, which he was for a good part of his life, you and the other democrat supporters would love him. It's how it is for people that follow politics, they are in it for what letter follows someones name. It's why I hate politics and most politicians. Every President in my lifetime had flaws and did stupid shit, but democrats stick up for democrats and Republicans stick up for Republicans. Not everyone, but a huge majority of voters. Its all a bunch of bullshit.

The main thing I do like about Trump though is that he is not a politician. You get me a democrat that is not about being a politician than maybe I will vote for him or her. I don't want to vote for someone just because they are politically correct and talk about how horrible Donald is. Give me a reason other than the BS. Tell me how you will keep the economy growing, how you are going to increase jobs, how you will stop the BS of trying to make everything about race, how you are going to stop trying to act like people that make an average living are rich, how are you going to promote and grow small business. I don't want to hear about the other persons personality and what they have done that is so bad, tell me what you can do for me. As for Trump, aside for him saying really stupid things and being politically incorrect, his plan is actually a net positive for the country. If he were polished, the coming election would be a slam dunk in his favor.

[Caf]

The thing is, if Trump were democrat, which he was for a good part of his life, you and the other democrat supporters would love him. It's how it is for people that follow politics, they are in it for what letter follows someones name. It's why I hate politics and most politicians. Every President in my lifetime had flaws and did stupid shit, but democrats stick up for democrats and Republicans stick up for Republicans. Not everyone, but a huge majority of voters. Its all a bunch of bullshit.

The main thing I do like about Trump though is that he is not a politician. You get me a democrat that is not about being a politician than maybe I will vote for him or her. I don't want to vote for someone just because they are politically correct and talk about how horrible Donald is. Give me a reason other than the BS. Tell me how you will keep the economy growing, how you are going to increase jobs, how you will stop the BS of trying to make everything about race, how you are going to stop trying to act like people that make an average living are rich, how are you going to promote and grow small business. I don't want to hear about the other persons personality and what they have done that is so bad, tell me what you can do for me. As for Trump, aside for him saying really stupid things and being politically incorrect, his plan is actually a net positive for the country. If he were polished, the coming election would be a slam dunk in his favor.

I'm a registered Republican.

[GoMuskies]

Can somebody help me with this 'senile Joe' narrative? I just watched a guy who happens to be the President spew utter nonsense for 2 full minutes in a National news briefing that he (presumably) knew about in advance and had time to prepare for. We have all also spent the last 3+ years watching him say (and especially tweet) things that suggest a legitimate mental disability or brain injury of some sort.

I think Biden is someone who used to have solid mental ability who is simply getting old and losing that mental ability. Most of us who've had grandparents have seen this in action. Trump, on the other hand, seems to be the same arrogant, mediocre, asshole he's always been.

[Caf]

You dont know me as well as you think you do. I'm not voting for trump this time, but I probably wont be voting for senile joe either.

Just because I dont blame every single thing that is wrong in this country on trump like some in this country and on here do, does not mean I'm a trumper.

There's plenty of time for you to be convinced by the Trump campaign the country will go to hell if he's not elected. I'll check back in closer to November.

[Mrs. Garrett]

The thing is, if Trump were democrat, which he was for a good part of his life, you and the other democrat supporters would love him. It's how it is for people that follow politics, they are in it for what letter follows someones name. It's why I hate politics and most politicians. Every President in my lifetime had flaws and did stupid shit, but democrats stick up for democrats and Republicans stick up for Republicans. Not everyone, but a huge majority of voters. Its all a bunch of bullshit.

The main thing I do like about Trump though is that he is not a politician. You get me a democrat that is not about being a politician than maybe I will vote for him or her. I don't want to vote for someone just because they are politically correct and talk about how horrible Donald is. Give me a reason other than the BS. Tell me how you will keep the economy growing, how you are going to increase jobs, how you will stop the BS of trying to make everything about race, how you are going to stop trying to act like people that make an average living are rich, how are you going to promote and grow small business. I don't want to hear about the other persons personality and what they have done that is so bad, tell me what you can do for me. As for Trump, aside for him saying really stupid things and being politically incorrect, his plan is actually a net positive for the country. If he were polished, the coming election would be a slam dunk in his favor.

If Trump were a democrat he wouldn't of even had enough support to make it to the first debate. Democrats would have gotten the joke from " Back to the Future Part II".

[Xville]

There's plenty of time for you to be convinced by the Trump campaign the country will go to hell if he's not elected. I'll check back in closer to November.

Pretty hilarious you think I'm easily swayed by anyone. Those who know me would actually laugh at that.

[Xville]

If Trump were a democrat he wouldn't of even had enough support to make it to the first debate. Democrats would have gotten the joke from " Back to the Future Part II".

Lol with the list of democrats that made it thru the first debate this go around, that's a hysterical statement.

[Blue Blooded-05]

It's funny that people think a guy might be Biden's VP candidate. There's 0 chance of that happening because the DNC won't let it happen. There was also no way anyone other than Biden was getting the nomination once he decided to run. Is there someone behind door number 3 that will magically appear before this election so that the 2 stinky piles of s**t currently in the running aren't the only options?

I don’t know how much I believe this talk about how the DNC REALLY makes their decisions behind some mythical door. If this were true, they should have run Hillary in 2008 and saved Obama (hard to believe he’s still only 58) for 2016.

Objectively speaking, no Republican was winning in 2008. The inevitable economic recovery by 2012 would have likely propelled Hillary to reelection and Obama is just too polished to have lost in 2016 or 2020. They missed the opportunity of 16 years of Presidential power.

If the DNC really is being manipulated by a small number of influential people, they really aren’t very good at their jobs.

[boozehound]

The thing is, if Trump were democrat, which he was for a good part of his life, you and the other democrat supporters would love him. It's how it is for people that follow politics, they are in it for what letter follows someones name. It's why I hate politics and most politicians. Every President in my lifetime had flaws and did stupid shit, but democrats stick up for democrats and Republicans stick up for Republicans. Not everyone, but a huge majority of voters. Its all a bunch of bullshit.

The main thing I do like about Trump though is that he is not a politician. You get me a democrat that is not about being a politician than maybe I will vote for him or her. I don't want to vote for someone just because they are politically correct and talk about how horrible Donald is. Give me a reason other than the BS. Tell me how you will keep the economy growing, how you are going to increase jobs, how you will stop the BS of trying to make everything about race, how you are going to stop trying to act like people that make an average living are rich, how are you going to promote and grow small business. I don't want to hear about the other persons personality and what they have done that is so bad, tell me what you can do for me. As for Trump, aside for him saying really stupid things and being politically incorrect, his plan is actually a net positive for the country. If he were polished, the coming election would be a slam dunk in his favor.

Honestly I think this whole post sounds like partisan nonsense. Speculating that Democrats would love Trump if he was a Democrat? I honestly don't know where to go with that. There's no real supporting argument or example I've also highlighted some passages (bold) that I think are code for "Trump says things that I secretly agree with but won't admit to because I don't want to be called racist / sexist / xenophobic".

I also think it takes a pretty tilted view of our current situation to think that 2020 would be a 'slam dunk' for Trump if he was more polished. We are in the middle of a Pandemic and the economy is falling apart. Those types of things generally aren't a great recipe for re-election even if you aren't a clear moron.

For the record: I'm not a Democrat. I'm probably about as independent as it gets. Here is my voting history (in Presidential elections) for anyone who may be interested I how I think about political choices. If you don't care, that's fine too!

2000: Ralph Nader - Yep. I was 18 years old. I didn't care a ton about politics. I didn't really like Bush or Gore, but I did really like smoking pot, so Nader was my candidate!

2004: Bush. I was still pretty young at 22, but I generally thought Bush did a decent job post-911. The economy was booming. Things seemed to generally be going very well. I typically vote based on the economy, so this was an easy choice.

2008: Obama. This was a tough one for me because I had really liked the pre-campaign John McCain when he used to go on the Daily Show and debate Jon Stewart. I really hated the whole Sarah Palin "playing to the lowest common denominator" VP pick which is probably what pushed me over the edge. I also felt that Obama had the most complete plan for helping the working / middle class post-recession.

2012: Romney - This was actually the candidate that I had liked the most in quite a few election cycles. He had executive experience and a history of being a Republican Governor in a liberal state. I also thought he had some good economic ideas / policies. As a pragmatist I love the idea of someone who can drive some compromise and hopefully get some things done. Unfortunately he got caught on a hot mic saying some (true) things at a donor dinner and that was it for him.

2016: Clinton - This was easy. I hated Trump and thought he was literally the worst candidate out of the entire field (both sides of the aisle) excluding Jill Stein. To me Trump combined the worst qualities of the Democrats (spending too much money that we don't have on social programs) with the worst qualities of the Republicans (socially draconian, excessively pro-gun, spending too much money that we don't have on military and tax cuts), with some of the worse qualities that a human can have (complete lack of empathy, almost pathological lying)

[GoMuskies]

If the DNC really is being manipulated by a small number of influential people, they really aren’t very good at their jobs.

I think that's pretty clear.

[Xville]

I don’t know how much I believe this talk about how the DNC REALLY makes their decisions behind some mythical door. If this were true, they should have run Hillary in 2008 and saved Obama (hard to believe he’s still only 58) for 2016.

Objectively speaking, no Republican was winning in 2008. The inevitable economic recovery by 2012 would have likely propelled Hillary to reelection and Obama is just too polished to have lost in 2016 or 2020. They missed the opportunity of 16 years of Presidential power.

If the DNC really is being manipulated by a small number of influential people, they really aren’t very good at their jobs.

No republican would have won in 08, except had Hillary been the democratic nominee. The only reason she performed as well as she did, is because she ran against the Donald.

[sgarcia]

I don’t know how much I believe this talk about how the DNC REALLY makes their decisions behind some mythical door. If this were true, they should have run Hillary in 2008 and saved Obama (hard to believe he’s still only 58) for 2016.

Objectively speaking, no Republican was winning in 2008. The inevitable economic recovery by 2012 would have likely propelled Hillary to reelection and Obama is just too polished to have lost in 2016 or 2020. They missed the opportunity of 16 years of Presidential power.

If the DNC really is being manipulated by a small number of influential people, they really aren’t very good at their jobs.

Blue,
My point wasn't for who should've run in a certain year. It was more of seeing who declares to run for the nomination and then doing whatever it takes for a specific person to get the nomination. Bernie was never in a million years getting the nomination in 2016 or 2020 regardless of what any of us think of his politics.

[boozehound]

I think that's pretty clear.

I also think that the Democrats are dealing with a problem right now similar to what the Republicans went through when the 'Tea Party' was around. They have a relatively large fringe movement that they didn't know how to deal with in this whole woke / Bernie / Socialist thing. They don't want to disenfranchise them and risk having them not show up to the polls, however the policies they are espousing are far too extreme to actually get anyone from that sect elected President.

[Mrs. Garrett]

Lol with the list of democrats that made it thru the first debate this go around, that's a hysterical statement.


Lol - Everyone is better than Trump

[Xville]

Lol - Everyone is better than Trump

That wasn't my point.

[X-man]

The thing is, if Trump were democrat, which he was for a good part of his life, you and the other democrat supporters would love him. It's how it is for people that follow politics, they are in it for what letter follows someones name. It's why I hate politics and most politicians. Every President in my lifetime had flaws and did stupid shit, but democrats stick up for democrats and Republicans stick up for Republicans. Not everyone, but a huge majority of voters. Its all a bunch of bullshit.

The main thing I do like about Trump though is that he is not a politician. You get me a democrat that is not about being a politician than maybe I will vote for him or her. I don't want to vote for someone just because they are politically correct and talk about how horrible Donald is. Give me a reason other than the BS. Tell me how you will keep the economy growing, how you are going to increase jobs, how you will stop the BS of trying to make everything about race, how you are going to stop trying to act like people that make an average living are rich, how are you going to promote and grow small business. I don't want to hear about the other persons personality and what they have done that is so bad, tell me what you can do for me. As for Trump, aside for him saying really stupid things and being politically incorrect, his plan is actually a net positive for the country. If he were polished, the coming election would be a slam dunk in his favor.

Those are fighting words. Don't you DARE claim that I, a Democrat, would EVER support that narcissistic moron.

[Caf]

Those are fighting words. Don't you DARE claim that I, a Democrat, would EVER support that narcissistic moron.

Saying you're a Democrat are fighting words around here.

[Caf]

Pretty hilarious you think I'm easily swayed by anyone. Those who know me would actually laugh at that.

I look forward to being proven wrong.

[noteggs]

I like Biden way more than Trump simply because I think he will re-establish a functional government, place qualified people in key positions, and then listen to them.

I like your voting record. Sounds like your Nader is my Perot (a little different incentive tho lol). Nice to see someone who doesn’t take an one size fits all approach.

However, if you mean re-establish functional government by:

- Having kids of politicians sit on boards with no experience only to make millions of dollars.

- FBI spying unlawfully on American citizens

- Make me buy products or get taxed

- Vastly increase the size and scope of the Federal government

- IRS targeting one side of the political isle.

- Department of Justice wiretapping phones of at least 20 reporters at The Associated Press and James Rosen at Fox.

Well Joe’s your man, since he was part of the last administration.

[Lloyd Braun]

So is Kim Jong Un dead?

[GoMuskies]

So is Kim Jong Un dead?

Kind of hope not. Feel like his sister is more dangerous.

[Lloyd Braun]

Kind of hope not. Feel like his sister is more dangerous.

She may be... I remember people saying the same about Kim Jong-un when Kim Jong-il died.

[Juice]

She may be... I remember people saying the same about Kim Jong-un when Kim Jong-il died.

Our media was impressed with her a few years ago

https://twitter.com/loganclarkhall/status/1254215594158718977?s=21

[Masterofreality]

The Washington Post, which we all know is always so damn accurate (Large Eye Roll) says that reports from Japan say that Un was on his armored train that had just arrived in a "Coastal Leadership Resort" Compound in Wonsan.
Allegedly this was confirmed by satellite imagery.

[boozehound]

So basically we still don't know. Do we want him dead, not want him dead, or are unsure?

[STL_XUfan]

So basically we still don't know. Do we want him dead, not want him dead, or are unsure?
Maybe the devil you know is better while all of this other crazy shit is going on.

[paulxu]

“I work from early in the morning until late at night, haven’t left the White House in many months (except to launch Hospital Ship Comfort) in order to take care of Trade Deals, Military Rebuilding etc.,” Trump tweeted Sunday.

Clearly there was an imposter on the golf course and holding rallies in January, February and March.
Someone should arrest that guy, and lock him up.

[Masterofreality]

“I work from early in the morning until late at night, haven’t left the White House in many months (except to launch Hospital Ship Comfort) in order to take care of Trade Deals, Military Rebuilding etc.,” Trump tweeted Sunday.

Clearly there was an imposter on the golf course and holding rallies in January, February and March.
Someone should arrest that guy, and lock him up.

Clearly there was a sham Impeachment going on that took The Administration’s, and the Country’s, attention away from more important matters that should have been addressed. Someone should arrest Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi and lock them up, in cells without $20,000 refrigerators and high dollar ice cream.

[boozehound]

Clearly there was a sham Impeachment going on that took The Administration’s, and the Country’s, attention away from more important matters that should have been addressed. Someone should arrest Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi and lock them up, in cells without $20,000 refrigerators and high dollar ice cream.

This guy is President and he can't focus on two things at once? Explain to me how the 'sham' impeachment impacted Health and Human Services? They couldn't address the potential pandemic because of the impeachment trial? Trump never even testified so it's not like he was endlessly tied up in court. The only way the impeachment was a distraction for Trump was if he let it be a distraction.

Let's say for a moment that he was distracted and unable do deal with 'more important things': Why would anybody support a President with no ability to multitask and such a lack of focus?

[Xville]

This guy is President and he can't focus on two things at once? Explain to me how the 'sham' impeachment impacted Health and Human Services? They couldn't address the potential pandemic because of the impeachment trial? Trump never even testified so it's not like he was endlessly tied up in court. The only way the impeachment was a distraction for Trump was if he let it be a distraction.

Let's say for a moment that he was distracted and unable do deal with 'more important things': Why would anybody support a President with no ability to multitask and such a lack of focus?

All one needs to do is look at quotes from.certain members of a certain party from around that time period to see where their focus was...spoiler alert, it was not on the possible pandemic...in fact there were quotes attributed to key leaders during that time suggesting trump's administration was creating a crisis out of nothing.

Now this isnt to say trump has been late and a fool regarding this whole ordeal, but congress was also a huge waste of space (both sides of the aisle.)

[Masterofreality]

This guy is President and he can't focus on two things at once? Explain to me how the 'sham' impeachment impacted Health and Human Services? They couldn't address the potential pandemic because of the impeachment trial? Trump never even testified so it's not like he was endlessly tied up in court. The only way the impeachment was a distraction for Trump was if he let it be a distraction.

Let's say for a moment that he was distracted and unable do deal with 'more important things': Why would anybody support a President with no ability to multitask and such a lack of focus?

It’s not an issue of “multitasking” it was a case of keeping your job, and everything that is entailed with that along with having to deal with an adversarial media.
I would submit that if you were in a position of possibly losing your job, you would have a pretty singular focus on doing whatever you had to do to keep it with less attention to anything else. That was sure how the media played it 24/7.

[paulxu]

He was so focused on the impeachment that he went to multiple rallies, visited his own properties multiple times...and of course squeezed in many rounds of golf..
He's a real multi-tasker. He was acquitted on Feb 6th. He learned of the virus in early January. Here's his golf schedule for Feb/Mar.
He also held 9 rallies during those 2 months.

The one thing we know for absolute certainty (well, people that don't buy into his nonsense know this) is that he has left the White House many times. Maybe he doesn't even realize it; I don't know.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUcLLiXX0AI6rfb.jpg

[Lloyd Braun]

What does the impeachment and the Democrats have to do with Trump lying that he hasn’t left the White House for months?

[AviatorX]

The "impeachment was a distraction" line of thinking is quite something. How can that even be something people actually think? If you're the POTUS, the buck stops with you, no matter what else is going on personal or professional, fair or unfair. That shouldn't be controversial. It's kind of part of the job description that comes with leader of the free world, no matter what letter is beside your name and no matter opposition party tactics.

Jesus.

[boozehound]

The "impeachment was a distraction" line of thinking is quite something. How can that even be something people actually think? If you're the POTUS, the buck stops with you, no matter what else is going on personal or professional, fair or unfair. That shouldn't be controversial. It's kind of part of the job description that comes with leader of the free world, no matter what letter is beside your name and no matter opposition party tactics.

Jesus.

That's pretty much my stance. It's amazing how some of these people simultaneously have complete trust in this guy while also apparently having a pretty low opinion of his discipline and overall ability. If he can't do his job while there is an impeachment trial going on then he shouldn't be the President. Not only that, but he knew from Day 1 that the Senate wasn't going to convict so it was pretty low stakes for him. Part of being an executive (of pretty much any kind, really) is never having job security and regularly making decisions that could cost you your job. If you can't do those things, you don't get to be an executive. Unless you inherit a company and a bunch of money from your Dad or something...

[Juice]

Here's is my favorite under the radar story going on in Ohio right now:

A Federal Super PAC Has Spent $321,821 on Alice DeWine’s Prosecutor Race in Greene County

https://theohiostar.com/2020/04/25/a-federal-super-pac-has-spent-321821-on-alice-dewines-prosecutor-race-in-greene-county/


A Federal Super PAC Has Spent $321,821 on Alice DeWine’s Prosecutor Race in Greene County
April 25, 2020 Zachery Schmidt



As Alice DeWine, the daughter of Gov. Mike DeWine, battles for the Greene County prosecutor position, a federal super PAC named Protecting Ohio Action Fund (POAF) has supported her campaign by spending $321,821 on it, according to The Columbus Dispatch.

Alice is in a tight race against Assistant Greene County Prosecutor David Hayes for the county’s prosecutor position. Both candidates are Republican as no Democrats ran for this position.

The super PAC has been backing Alice by spending money on polling and digital advertising for her campaign, The Dispatch reported.

Almost $320,000 of POAF’s contributions came from a super PAC named Protecting Ohio Inc., according to Federal Election Committee records.

The Dispatch reported Protecting Ohio Inc. is a tax-exempt non-profit that formed right after Alice left the Greene County prosecutor’s office to go work in Clark County as an assistant prosecutor.

Protecting Ohio Inc. qualifies as a dark money group so it does not have to unveil its donors.

Besides a super PAC throwing its efforts behind Alice, her father and Attorney General Dave Yost have also publicly supported her.



Her father held the position his daughter is running for in 1976. This position launched his political career as he went on to become an Ohio state Senator in 1980.

Even with all this money and support against him, Alice’s opponent still feels confident about the election.

“That amount of money being spent on a local, county race, it is really insane,” Hayes told The Dispatch. “But, I have near-universal law enforcement support and the people who support me are residents of Greene County — not politicians in Columbus or family members.

“From their perspective, she has to win this race. This is her political coming-out party and if she doesn’t win this race, her political career may be over before it’s started,” he added.

The winner of the Greene County prosecutor will be announced next week as Ohio’s primary is April 28.

[Masterofreality]

The "impeachment was a distraction" line of thinking is quite something. How can that even be something people actually think? If you're the POTUS, the buck stops with you, no matter what else is going on personal or professional, fair or unfair. That shouldn't be controversial. It's kind of part of the job description that comes with leader of the free world, no matter what letter is beside your name and no matter opposition party tactics.

Jesus.

Except that Impeachment has only been used two other times in American History. It's not exactly common and how much attention is a President supposed to parcel out to it? When his job is on the line? Even with that, there was still more action taken than your boy Demnted "Xenophobic" Joe would have taken.

Your discounting of the ridiculous process and the flimsy premise that it was based upon....as flimsy as the Steele Dossier that started the entire Mueller probe is disingenuous at best and just plain disgusting at worst.

Jesus....In Spades.

[Masterofreality]

That's pretty much my stance. It's amazing how some of these people simultaneously have complete trust in this guy while also apparently having a pretty low opinion of his discipline and overall ability. If he can't do his job while there is an impeachment trial going on then he shouldn't be the President. Not only that, but he knew from Day 1 that the Senate wasn't going to convict so it was pretty low stakes for him. Part of being an executive (of pretty much any kind, really) is never having job security and regularly making decisions that could cost you your job. If you can't do those things, you don't get to be an executive. Unless you inherit a company and a bunch of money from your Dad or something...

Talk about having a "pretty low opinion of his discipline and overall ability". The opposition party will nominate a Dementia Laden groper who won't be able to put a coherent sentence together without a TelePrompTer and has such a lack of discipline that he can't keep his ham hands of women at best and is a rapist at worst. That's the best that they can do? Hell, they only had 24,375 candidates to choose from, from all races and genders, and they decide on an old decrepit white guy who they are holding back away from the press so he won't embarrass himself with his statements. Gawd Forbid that he contribute anything to ideas about what to do about this current issue. He won't because he can't.

Accept the fact that Before this current issue, despite a snarky press and rigged calls for "investigations", this country was doing just fine with economic opportunity for all population segments, The trash in the Middle East was being taken out, bad trade deals were being reversed and despite all the hyped up threats in the press, the country was at peace. Trump's gonna win a second term.

But go ahead and revel in your Trump Derangememt Syndrome...about equivalent to Biden Dementia Syndrome.

[AviatorX]

Except that Impeachment has only been used two other times in American History. It's not exactly common and how much attention is a President supposed to parcel out to it? When his job is on the line? Even with that, there was still more action taken than your boy Demnted "Xenophobic" Joe would have taken.

Your discounting of the ridiculous process and the flimsy premise that it was based upon....as flimsy as the Steele Dossier that started the entire Mueller probe is disingenuous at best and just plain disgusting at worst.

Jesus....In Spades.

Yes, I am 100% discounting whether the premise was strong, flimsy, whatever. It doesn't matter if I think impeachment was the dumbest political event in a generation. I expect the President of the United States to be able to do their job no matter what is happening politically or personally. I do not think that's a high bar at all.

Just for the sake of conversation, let's say there were concrete actions Trump could have taken while the impeachment process was ongoing that would have impacted the severity of the pandemic. Is your position that it's acceptable for Trump to not have been taken these actions because he was focused on impeachment? That's ridiculous. Switch Trumps name out with anyone and a pandemic for any negative event impactng our country and I would firmly say that is absolutely an insane position.

[Masterofreality]

Yes, I am 100% discounting whether the premise was strong, flimsy, whatever. It doesn't matter if I think impeachment was the dumbest political event in a generation. I expect the President of the United States to be able to do their job no matter what is happening politically or personally. I do not think that's a high bar at all.

Just for the sake of conversation, let's say there were concrete actions Trump could have taken while the impeachment process was ongoing that would have impacted the severity of the pandemic. Is your position that it's acceptable for Trump to not have been taken these actions because he was focused on impeachment? That's ridiculous. Switch Trumps name out with anyone and a pandemic for any negative event impactng our country and I would firmly say that is absolutely an insane position.

Ok, you tell me what "concrete actions" he should have taken, with your rear view mirror clairvoyance, since you are so smart. You seem to have it all figured out. The first case of Covid19 in the US wasn't reported until January 21 per the NE Journal of Medicine-that in Washington state. Trump stopped flights from China on January 31, within hours after the WHO finally declared a Public Health Emergency. China kept important information from the world and was even hoo dooing the WHO. Trump was called a Xenophobic racist for stopping flights from China in late Jamuary and there was absolutely no panic from the Left. So I'm sure you, in all your infinite and clairvoyant wisdom would have shut down the economy on January 10 or 20the before there was even a case? That is the ultimate Monday morning quarterbacking, baby. Perfect 20/20 hindsight.

The impeachment trial in the Senate was going on all through January because stupid Pelosi never sent the charges over when she should have so it could have been discharged quickly. You know when the Senate voted to acquit? February 5. So while the Impeachment was at its peak in the Senate, Trump DID take actions to try to minimize this virus here. So you just seem to forget all about that, huh?

I pointed out in the Covid thread that despite the media hyperbole, the deaths per million in the US is not even in the top ten of world countries- and that over half of the deaths are in two states- one of which the Mayor of the Largest city was telling people to "live their lives" while he was on his way to the gym. I'm not saying Trump has been perfect in this , but there has been a helluva lot more done, in the face of a once a century political theatre event than you haters want to give credit for.

[AviatorX]

Ok, you tell me what "concrete actions" he should have taken, with your rear view mirror clairvoyance, since you are so smart. You seem to have it all figured out. The first case of Covid19 in the US wasn't reported until January 21 per the NE Journal of Medicine-that in Washington state. Trump stopped flights from China on January 31, within hours after the WHO finally declared a Public Health Emergency. China kept important information from the world and was even hoo dooing the WHO. Trump was called a Xenophobic racist for stopping flights from China in late Jamuary and there was absolutely no panic from the Left. So I'm sure you, in all your infinite and clairvoyant wisdom would have shut down the economy on January 10 or 20the before there was even a case? That is the ultimate Monday morning quarterbacking, baby. Perfect 20/20 hindsight.

The impeachment trial in the Senate was going on all through January because stupid Pelosi never sent the charges over when she should have so it could have been discharged quickly. You know when the Senate voted to acquit? February 5. So while the Impeachment was at its peak in the Senate, Trump DID take actions to try to minimize this virus here. So you just seem to forget all about that, huh?

I pointed out in the Covid thread that despite the media hyperbole, the deaths per million in the US is not even in the top ten of world countries- and that over half of the deaths are in two states- one of which the Mayor of the Largest city was telling people to "live their lives" while he was on his way to the gym. I'm not saying Trump has been perfect in this , but there has been a helluva lot more done, in the face of a once a century political theatre event than you haters want to give credit for.

Go back and re read my post. I’m not criticizing or praising Trump. Just saying the idea that he was too busy dealing with impeachment is laughably stupid. Predictably, you beat the hell out of that straw man.

[GoMuskies]

I was just checking recent odds to maybe place a bet and here is updated odds from a recent Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackjones/2020/04/23/biden-vice-presidential-nominee-odds-shift-as-elizabeth-warren-garners-support/amp/) article.

Odds to be Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee

Kamala Harris: 7/4
Amy Klobuchar: 7/2
Elizabeth Warren: 11/2
Gretchen Whitmer: 15/2
Stacey Abrams: 11/1
Catherine Cortez Masto: 14/1
Michelle Obama: 16/1
Hilary Clinton: 16/1
Tammy Duckworth: 20/1
Val Demings: 25/1

Odds to Win 2020 U.S. Presidential Election:

Donald Trump: 5/6
Joe Biden: 6/5

Odds at my book. Dem VP:

Harris +100
Warren +275
Klobuchar +400
M. Obama +800
Whitmer +800
Abrams +1200
Masto +2000
H. Clinton +2500
Baldwin +3300
Demings +4000
Duckworth +5000
B. Obama +5000

Odds to win Presidential Election:

Republican -115
Democrat -105

Trump -145
Biden +125

[Masterofreality]

Go back and re read my post. I’m not criticizing or praising Trump. Just saying the idea that he was too busy dealing with impeachment is laughably stupid. Predictably, you beat the hell out of that straw man.

I read every word of your post. You can't refute a single thing I said, so you resort to name calling- Which is typical and laughably stupid, Pot.

You inferred the President didn't do his job during a once a century political earthquake. I just showed you that he did, and probably could have done more analysis and study to take more action if he wasn't distracted by a sham, partisan clown show by Schiff & Pelosi.

[boozehound]

Here's is my favorite under the radar story going on in Ohio right now:

A Federal Super PAC Has Spent $321,821 on Alice DeWine’s Prosecutor Race in Greene County

https://theohiostar.com/2020/04/25/a-federal-super-pac-has-spent-321821-on-alice-dewines-prosecutor-race-in-greene-county/

In my opinion this type of thing is the single biggest problem with Politics in America right now. If you removed all the money, the donations, and the quid pro quo bullshit we would have a much more effective system. I'd like to see strict guidelines that dramatically limit donations as well as a lifetime ban on politicians leaving office and becoming lobbyists or otherwise receiving money / jobs from corporations that they had the ability to benefit while in office.

[AviatorX]

I read every word of your post. You can't refute a single thing I said, so you resort to name calling- Which is typical and laughably stupid, Pot.

You inferred the President didn't do his job during a once a century political earthquake. I just showed you that he did, and probably could have done more analysis and study to take more action if he wasn't distracted by a sham, partisan clown show by Schiff & Pelosi.

Maybe you need to read it out loud? Or nice and slow? I haven’t weighed in at all on the merits of impeachment or Trump’s actions. You were the one who implied there was more Trump could have done in post #5532 but the administration was too focused on impeachment.

I’m not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp. Even if I thought Trump was 100% on point with his actions to combat the pandemic from start to finish, I would still think it’s monumentally stupid to offer up the thought/potential excuse that impeachment was a distraction that prevented the administration from giving full attention to more pressing matters.

[boozehound]

Talk about having a "pretty low opinion of his discipline and overall ability". The opposition party will nominate a Dementia Laden groper who won't be able to put a coherent sentence together without a TelePrompTer and has such a lack of discipline that he can't keep his ham hands of women at best and is a rapist at worst. That's the best that they can do? Hell, they only had 24,375 candidates to choose from, from all races and genders, and they decide on an old decrepit white guy who they are holding back away from the press so he won't embarrass himself with his statements. Gawd Forbid that he contribute anything to ideas about what to do about this current issue. He won't because he can't.

Accept the fact that Before this current issue, despite a snarky press and rigged calls for "investigations", this country was doing just fine with economic opportunity for all population segments, The trash in the Middle East was being taken out, bad trade deals were being reversed and despite all the hyped up threats in the press, the country was at peace. Trump's gonna win a second term.

But go ahead and revel in your Trump Derangememt Syndrome...about equivalent to Biden Dementia Syndrome.

Holy moly. Lots of reaching in this post.

You would actually have a point if I was blindly extolling the virtues of Joe Biden, or even extolling his virtues at all. Which I haven't done, nor have I heard a lot of others do for that matter. The strength (or lack thereof) of the Democratic candidates in the upcoming election has no bearing on any criticism of how Trump is doing the job right now.

You (and many others) seem to pick political sides and support them as if they were a sports team. It's actually easy (and frightening) to see how a potential descent into totalitarianism would with when interacting with people that think like you do.

[Xville]

In my opinion this type of thing is the single biggest problem with Politics in America right now. If you removed all the money, the donations, and the quid pro quo bullshit we would have a much more effective system. I'd like to see strict guidelines that dramatically limit donations as well as a lifetime ban on politicians leaving office and becoming lobbyists or otherwise receiving money / jobs from corporations that they had the ability to benefit while in office.

Add term limits to that, I am completely with ya. Being a politician should not be a career.

[Lloyd Braun]

Odds at my book.

Odds to win Presidential Election:

Republican -115
Democrat -105

Trump -145
Biden +125

I find the odds to win Presidential election pretty interesting as it gives a +/- 30 for Trump/Biden to not be the candidate, which implicates a 20% chance of major scandal or death in the next 6 months. Actually that’s probably about right given the candidates....

[Blue Blooded-05]

“If in fact for example we solve problem in the United States of America and you don’t solve it in other parts of the world, do you know what’s gonna happen? We’re gonna have, yer gonna have travel bans. You’re gonna have... not be able to do, have... have economic intercourse around the world...”

- Joe Biden

Heads we fvcked. Tails we fvcked

[Mrs. Garrett]

“If in fact for example we solve problem in the United States of America and you don’t solve it in other parts of the world, do you know what’s gonna happen? We’re gonna have, yer gonna have travel bans. You’re gonna have... not be able to do, have... have economic intercourse around the world...”

- Joe Biden

Heads we fvcked. Tails we fvcked

Amen

[Juice]

Mayor Bill de Blasio
@NYCMayor
My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period.

Some mild to medium level antisemitism coming from New York's mayor tonight.

[boozehound]

“If in fact for example we solve problem in the United States of America and you don’t solve it in other parts of the world, do you know what’s gonna happen? We’re gonna have, yer gonna have travel bans. You’re gonna have... not be able to do, have... have economic intercourse around the world...”

- Joe Biden

Heads we fvcked. Tails we fvcked

I sort of agree with the overall premise, but I think that stating it this way makes it sound like they are equally poor choices. I do not agree with that. Biden has definitely lost a step or two, but Trump is a lunatic with a complete lack of discipline or empathy.

For example: If you had the choice between getting hit in the face with a stick, or a baseball bat, you are screwed either way. I'd still much rather get hit with the stick.

Hell, we had Reagan with Alzheimers for several years and things were fine because he had built a functioning government.

[X Factor]

I sort of agree with the overall premise, but I think that stating it this way makes it sound like they are equally poor choices. I do not agree with that. Biden has definitely lost a step or two, but Trump is a lunatic with a complete lack of discipline or empathy.

For example: If you had the choice between getting hit in the face with a stick, or a baseball bat, you are screwed either way. I'd still much rather get hit with the stick.

Hell, we had Reagan with Alzheimers for several years and things were fine because he had built a functioning government.

To say Trump has a complete lack of discipline or empathy is utter bullsh**.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/trump-offers-10g-to-hero-bus-driver

Oh, and the bus driver was black. Trump is racist though.

https://www.accessonline.com/articles/donald-trump-puts-jennifer-hudson-family-up-for-free-in-chicago-hotel-66176

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-flies-sick-boy/

Yep, just a complete lack of empathy.

[boozehound]

To say Trump has a complete lack of discipline or empathy is utter bullsh**.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/trump-offers-10g-to-hero-bus-driver

Oh, and the bus driver was black. Trump is racist though.

https://www.accessonline.com/articles/donald-trump-puts-jennifer-hudson-family-up-for-free-in-chicago-hotel-66176

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-flies-sick-boy/

Yep, just a complete lack of empathy.

OMG, thank you for posting this. You found 3 articles. Let's deconstruct them:

The first article (from Foxnews) looks like a publicity stunt in which Trump is claiming he is going to give $10K to a bus driver who kept someone from committing suicide. Further research suggests that Trump has a rich history of claiming donations to various charitable causes that don't materialize. You also felt the need to mention that the truck driver was black as though Trump giving a black person $10K means he cannot be racist, which is probably kind of racist in and of itself.

The second article (from access Hollywood 12 years ago?) is about Trump allowing an American Idol winner to stay in his hotel for free. Something he definitely made sure the media got a hold of.

The 3rd article is a snopes fact check about Trump flying a sick kid somewhere, which is nice.

A few individual acts of empathy and kindness don't necessarily prove empathy either. Lots of psychopaths sometimes do nice things.

The fact that X Factor felt the need to post this hits on another frequent point of mine: It really concerns me the way people feel the need to graft positive behaviors onto this guy despite his very public lifetime of being a total heel. It's the exact thing that people do with dictators is places like Brazil, Russia, and Venezuela.

[AviatorX]

I 100% understand that Trump's presidency has been very good to a lot of people and won't question their support for him, but proving the man's empathy is not a hill I'd want to die on.

[Blue Blooded-05]

I sort of agree with the overall premise, but I think that stating it this way makes it sound like they are equally poor choices. I do not agree with that. Biden has definitely lost a step or two, but Trump is a lunatic with a complete lack of discipline or empathy.

For example: If you had the choice between getting hit in the face with a stick, or a baseball bat, you are screwed either way. I'd still much rather get hit with the stick.

Hell, we had Reagan with Alzheimers for several years and things were fine because he had built a functioning government.


So that settles it: More Economic Intercourse!

My 80 year old father was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s 2 years ago. He has good days and bad days. If you watch the interview with Biden where he says the quote, he really struggles to find the right word to finish his thought. This happens to my father all the time. I know he knows what word he’s trying to find but he just can’t find it in the moment. You can almost see him panic for a split second before he substitutes a new word he thinks is close and just hopes it’s coherent.

Biden’s verbal gaffes will get passed off as a flub. People will say “if I had cameras on me 24/7, I cannot imagine how much stupid shit I would say.” However, the people with loved ones struggling with various forms of dementia will see it for what it actually is. My father has to trust us with just about every decision he makes. Knowing where Biden is likely headed, I cannot imagine how this will get manipulated for political gain both domestically and internationally.

You’re correct Reagan probably should have stepped down toward the end. But consider the context - He was in the 2nd half of his 2nd term and the Republicans didn’t want his condition exposed as the Cold War was concluding while the Democrats didn’t want HW Bush to become acting President heading into the 1988 election. Their political motivations were thankfully aligned. No way that happens this time.

It sucks that a vote against dementia is a vote for incompetent arrogant buffoonery. But it is what it is.

Once again: Heads we fvcked. Tails we fvcked

[Lamont Sanford]

So that settles it: More Economic Intercourse!

My 80 year old father was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s 2 years ago. He has good days and bad days. If you watch the interview with Biden where he says the quote, he really struggles to find the right word to finish his thought. This happens to my father all the time. I know he knows what word he’s trying to find but he just can’t find it in the moment. You can almost see him panic for a split second before he substitutes a new word he thinks is close and just hopes it’s coherent.

Biden’s verbal gaffes will get passed off as a flub. People will say “if I had cameras on me 24/7, I cannot imagine how much stupid shit I would say.” However, the people with loved ones struggling with various forms of dementia will see it for what it actually is. My father has to trust us with just about every decision he makes. Knowing where Biden is likely headed, I cannot imagine how this will get manipulated for political gain both domestically and internationally.

You’re correct Reagan probably should have stepped down toward the end. But consider the context - He was in the 2nd half of his 2nd term and the Republicans didn’t want his condition exposed as the Cold War was concluding while the Democrats didn’t want HW Bush to become acting President heading into the 1988 election. Their political motivations were thankfully aligned. No way that happens this time.

It sucks that a vote against dementia is a vote for incompetent arrogant buffoonery. But it is what it is.

Once again: Heads we fvcked. Tails we fvcked

Well said Blue-Blooded. My father is also 80 years old and has had Alzheimers for 4+ years. Watching Biden talk is like watching my father speak when he was in the early stages of the disease. He clearly has dementia and his staff, the DNC and the mainstream media know it. I wouldn't vote for my father to run the country, so why in the hell would I vote for Biden.

MAGA.

[X-man]

Well said Blue-Blooded. My father is also 80 years old and has had Alzheimers for 4+ years. Watching Biden talk is like watching my father speak when he was in the early stages of the disease. He clearly has dementia and his staff, the DNC and the mainstream media know it. I wouldn't vote for my father to run the country, so why in the hell would I vote for Biden.

MAGA.

But you (apparently) voted for Trump???

[Smails]

I sort of agree with the overall premise, but I think that stating it this way makes it sound like they are equally poor choices. I do not agree with that. Biden has definitely lost a step or two, but Trump is a lunatic with a complete lack of discipline or empathy.

For example: If you had the choice between getting hit in the face with a stick, or a baseball bat, you are screwed either way. I'd still much rather get hit with the stick.

How exactly is Biden the stick and Trump the bat?

Lost a step or 2? Listen, we understand that you despise DJT (to each his own) but to simply say that Biden has lost s step or 2 is being completely intellectually dishonest. He is literally losing the ability to process thoughts, yet people are confident that he'll build a build a good government? To me that makes zero sense. I've had the unfortunate experience of caring for someone with these issues and it can go downhill in a second. I'm talking a matter of months from forgetting names to needing 24 hour care.

[X-man]

How exactly is Biden the stick and Trump the bat?

Lost a step or 2? Listen, we understand that you despise DJT (to each his own) but to simply say that Biden has lost s step or 2 is being completely intellectually dishonest. He is literally losing the ability to process thoughts, yet people are confident that he'll build a build a good government? To me that makes zero sense. I've had the unfortunate experience of caring for someone with these issues and it can go downhill in a second. I'm talking a matter of months from forgetting names to needing 24 hour care.

Are you suggesting that Trump has that ability? Evidence, please.

[Smails]

Are you suggesting that Trump has that ability? Evidence, please.

I'm suggesting that there is no comparison between your (and other's) views of Trump being a sociopathic, narcissistic douche, and evidence of REAL dementia. Biden's neurons aren't firing properly.

Just because you disagree with Trumps trade deals, tax plans, and overall public policy doesn't mean he didn't have the faculties in place to craft them. It's laughable that people are shifting this this narrative. Nobody was talking about Trump having dementia until Biden began his media gaffe tour.

[boozehound]

Are you suggesting that Trump has that ability? Evidence, please.


I'm suggesting that there is no comparison between your (and other's) views of Trump being a sociopathic, narcissistic douche, and evidence of REAL dementia. Biden's neurons aren't firing properly.

Just because you disagree with Trumps trade deals, tax plans, and overall public policy doesn't mean he didn't have the faculties in place to craft them. It's laughable that people are shifting this this narrative. Nobody was talking about Trump having dementia until Biden began his media gaffe tour.

This is just a straight-up falsehood. People have been questioning Trump's mental state, and specifically whether he might have dementia, for several years now. Some of these are pretty thorough in their evaluation of the reasoning behind the assertion.

USA Today Op Ed from 2009 Titled "Does Trump Have Dementia"/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/09/does-donald-trump-have-dementia-we-need-know-psychologist-column/3404007002/)

Article from the Atlantic 2019: Is there something Neurologically Wrong with Trump? (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/01/trump-cog-decline/548759/)

Here's one from 2015 (https://lawsuit.org/does-trump-have-dementia-analyzing-his-speech-changes-over-time/)

[Mrs. Garrett]

Well said Blue-Blooded. My father is also 80 years old and has had Alzheimers for 4+ years. Watching Biden talk is like watching my father speak when he was in the early stages of the disease. He clearly has dementia and his staff, the DNC and the mainstream media know it. I wouldn't vote for my father to run the country, so why in the hell would I vote for Biden.

MAGA.

There's been a lot of speculation that Trump also shows signs of dementia. I could share many links, but it's a waste of time with the pro-Trump (fake news) group.

[Masterofreality]

This is just a straight-up falsehood. People have been questioning Trump's mental state, and specifically whether he might have dementia, for several years now. Some of these are pretty thorough in their evaluation of the reasoning behind the assertion.

USA Today Op Ed from 2009 Titled "Does Trump Have Dementia"/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/09/does-donald-trump-have-dementia-we-need-know-psychologist-column/3404007002/)

Article from the Atlantic 2019: Is there something Neurologically Wrong with Trump? (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/01/trump-cog-decline/548759/)

Here's one from 2015 (https://lawsuit.org/does-trump-have-dementia-analyzing-his-speech-changes-over-time/)

Laugh Out Loud!!

Every publication that you quoted is on record long term of hating Trump. The Atlantic is basically equal to Breitbart on the other side.
USA Toaday has never been fair to this administration, never, but you try to cite that as a quotabkle source? Amazing.

BTW. Those who excuse Biden's flubs as Malaprops under the guise of "If you have the camera on you 24/7 you'll get caught saying something stupid" sure are the first ones to jump on Trump when he says something stupid...and he has....just like every damn politician. Trump is a narcissistic a-hole, but he has put a functional government together despite the undermining by lots of long term government workers- and honestly entrenched media who were seeing their little hornets nest of contacts being cashiered-who didn't like their little Fiefdom Club disturbed. Took a while to root those suckers out and it took a while for a private citizen to figure out how some of this internal government iish works, but he did, with overall really good results until this disease craziness started.

[Lamont Sanford]

But you (apparently) voted for Trump???

Damn straight. Planning to in November as well.

[bobbiemcgee]

Trump when he says something stupid...and he has.... Trump is a narcissistic a-hole....

Got some of it right. Who wants an narcissistic a-hole for President?

[GoMuskies]

Who wants an narcissistic a-hole for President?

How could we ever have someone who s not a narcissistic asshole as President? Only a narcissistic asshole would ever even consider running for President.

[X-man]

At least MOR is consistent. If someone (person or media) dislikes Trump, they are ipso facto liars and wrong no matter the evidence. MOR, for example, keeps claiming the Washington Post's news reporting is not to be believed because the Post opinion people, as well as Bezos no doubt, dislike Trump. Yet every time the right claims the Post made stuff up in their news articles, they cite no evidence. In fact, the evidence that subsequently comes out after Post reporting invariably demonstrates that the Post is accurately citing their numerous sources.

[bobbiemcgee]

How could we ever have someone who s not a narcissistic asshole as President? Only a narcissistic asshole would ever even consider running for President.

Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder:
.Grandiose sense of self-importance. ...
.Lives in a fantasy world that supports their delusions of grandeur. ...
.Needs constant praise and admiration. ...
.Sense of entitlement. ...
.Exploits others without guilt or shame. ...
.Frequently demeans, intimidates, bullies, or belittles others.

He does fit the bill.

[GoMuskies]

Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder:
.Grandiose sense of self-importance. ...
.Lives in a fantasy world that supports their delusions of grandeur. ...
.Needs constant praise and admiration. ...
.Sense of entitlement. ...
.Exploits others without guilt or shame. ...
.Frequently demeans, intimidates, bullies, or belittles others.

He does fit the bill.

As does every other recent President and serious presidential candidate.

[XU 87]

Got some of it right. Who wants an narcissistic a-hole for President?

I suppose it's better than someone with early dementia.

[noteggs]

As does every other recent President and serious presidential candidate.

Bingo

[GoMuskies]

I suppose it's better than someone with early dementia.

Early?

[paulxu]

You have to go back to 2013 to find something nice that Trump did?

Did you get a refund on your Trump University tuition?

[Masterofreality]

At least MOR is consistent. If someone (person or media) dislikes Trump, they are ipso facto liars and wrong no matter the evidence. MOR, for example, keeps claiming the Washington Post's news reporting is not to be believed because the Post opinion people, as well as Bezos no doubt, dislike Trump. Yet every time the right claims the Post made stuff up in their news articles, they cite no evidence. In fact, the evidence that subsequently comes out after Post reporting invariably demonstrates that the Post is accurately citing their numerous sources.

Riiiiiiight. Like when the Post jumped on a story about Bret Kavanaugh- Trumps hand picked SCOTUS selection- from an uncorroborated accuser that NO ONE gave back up to, but they ran, and ran and ran and ran with it. How's that story look now?
Oh, and how about the 2019' articles that the Post ran claiming that Trump was benefitting from Russian influence in his campaign? No evidence put forth no sources and they've been sued for defamation.

Or this from the unbiased Investors Business Daily:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/washington-post-fake-news-passports-media-bias/

“Sources" yeah.

[boozehound]

Laugh Out Loud!!

Every publication that you quoted is on record long term of hating Trump. The Atlantic is basically equal to Breitbart on the other side.
USA Toaday has never been fair to this administration, never, but you try to cite that as a quotabkle source? Amazing.

BTW. Those who excuse Biden's flubs as Malaprops under the guise of "If you have the camera on you 24/7 you'll get caught saying something stupid" sure are the first ones to jump on Trump when he says something stupid...and he has....just like every damn politician. Trump is a narcissistic a-hole, but he has put a functional government together despite the undermining by lots of long term government workers- and honestly entrenched media who were seeing their little hornets nest of contacts being cashiered-who didn't like their little Fiefdom Club disturbed. Took a while to root those suckers out and it took a while for a private citizen to figure out how some of this internal government iish works, but he did, with overall really good results until this disease craziness started.

I cited those sources as a direct response to a demonstrably false claim that "no one was questioning if Trump had dementia until Biden's gaffes which has been proven untrue. You can argue if those sources were being fair to Trump, but you can't argue that it didn't happen.

I get that Trump is your guy. It makes a lot of sense, actually. You like to call people things like 'Beaknose' and 'Desert Raccoon' and have a deep love of alliterative but insulting nicknames for people with whom you disagree or dislike. Many, but not all of them, making light of their physical appearance. Trump was probably like your Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of Presidential candidates.

The thing that generally concerns me is the ability of people, to filter out anything negative about Trump. I believe that they believe it, too. So many seem to have crafted a narrative in which Trump built a functional government despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. They probably think that 'politicians' are corrupt but Trump isn't. He's cleaning up Washington and 'draining the swamp'!

I understand people who think of Trump as the lesser of two evils. I understand why people voted for him, and why some people would vote for him again. The people who genuinely think he is doing a good job baffle me.

[Smails]

This is just a straight-up falsehood. People have been questioning Trump's mental state, and specifically whether he might have dementia, for several years now. Some of these are pretty thorough in their evaluation of the reasoning behind the assertion.

USA Today Op Ed from 2009 Titled "Does Trump Have Dementia"/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/09/does-donald-trump-have-dementia-we-need-know-psychologist-column/3404007002/)

Article from the Atlantic 2019: Is there something Neurologically Wrong with Trump? (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/01/trump-cog-decline/548759/)

Here's one from 2015 (https://lawsuit.org/does-trump-have-dementia-analyzing-his-speech-changes-over-time/)

Okay...those are Op-Eds from anti-Trump publications but I'll gladly pull back on my assertion that this is a new conversation regarding Trump's capacity. Now, Booze, since you fancy yourself an independent thinker and not a partisan hack I have to ask you,, do you in your heart of hearts honestly believe that Trump is suffering from dementia? Yes or no question.

[paulxu]

Kavanugh's story was uncorroborated because the Republican Senate was too chicken shit to call the witness who was in the room.

If you read the Mueller report, you'd know there is plenty of evidence of Russian influence on social media to benefit Trump's candidacy.

And of course, Trump didn't sign the check to Stormy.

I hope you get your refund from TU.

[Smails]

The thing that generally concerns me is the ability of people, to filter out anything negative about Trump.

Do you share the same concern about the inability of people to not give him credit for literally anything positive he has done since being elected? I can tell you that I know scores of people (my dad for 1) who are so repulsed by who he is as a person that they are literally unable to say that's he's done ANYTHING right. They are equally as obtuse and in larger numbers if you ask me.

[boozehound]

Okay...those are Op-Eds from anti-Trump publications but I'll gladly pull back on my assertion that this is a new conversation regarding Trump's capacity. Now, Booze, since you fancy yourself an independent thinker and not a partisan hack I have to ask you,, do you in your heart of hearts honestly believe that Trump is suffering from dementia? Yes or no question.

I would guess that your definition of an 'Anti-Trump' publication is probably pretty much anything that isn't a pro-Trump publication. For that matter, most of the 'Biden has Dementia' articles I have seen have come from anti-Biden (or Pro-Trump) sources. Even the one from WAPO is an op-ed written but a guy who worked for Bush and Rumsfeld. Do those bear a similar standard of dismissal due to bias?

To answer your question directly: No, I don't he is suffering from dementia. I'm not convinced that Biden is either, though. Biden was never known for his eloquence. We may just be seeing an older, slower version of the gaffe-prone Joe Biden we have seen for the last 12+ years.

[paulxu]

In regard to the nickname deal, here is an email my buddy received (his name is William):


CROOKED HILLARY ENDORSES SLEEPY JOE

Did you hear the news, William?

Sleepy Joe Biden just racked up some new endorsements for President of the United States.

First (and shortest), Mini Mike Bloomberg endorsed Biden.
Next, Crazy Bernie was forced to drop out and endorse Biden.
Then, Cheatin’ Obama (after waiting 355 days) endorsed his former VP, Biden.
After that, Nervous Nancy endorsed Biden.
And just today, Crooked Hillary endorsed Biden.

The Liberals are uniting behind their pathetic candidate to try and take me down, and more importantly, to take YOU down.

We have a crucial goal coming up in two days, and now that Sleepy Joe has FIVE key Democrat endorsements, I’m going to do something I’ve never done before...

For the NEXT HOUR, all contributions made to our critical $5,000,000 End-of-Month Goal will be not 3, not 4, but 5X-MATCHED!

We need to absolutely CRUSH Joe this month, and I can’t do it without you. I want a list of all Patriots who donate in the NEXT HOUR.

Please contribute ANY AMOUNT in the NEXT HOUR to our End-of-Month Goal and your gift will automatically be 5X-MATCHED. >>


That email came from this website: https://buildingourmovement.com/

There's no apparent content to that website. Only a place to donate and collect emails. But I feel it's legit, because Trump's campaign manager is Pascale who made his bones in the media/advertising area last election.

My question is very simple: Does the use of 4th grade, schoolyard bully nicknames of your opponents really appeal to most Trump voters?
Is that what gets them to donate and vote?

[boozehound]

Do you share the same concern about the inability of people to not give him credit for literally anything positive he has done since being elected? I can tell you that I know scores of people (my dad for 1) who are so repulsed by who he is as a person that they are literally unable to say that's he's done ANYTHING right. They are equally as obtuse and in larger numbers if you ask me.

This is fair, and I know plenty of those as well. Yes, I absolutely do. It all contributes to an environment that is so hyper-partisan that we deify 'our' party's candidates and vilify the opposition. My Aunt hates Trump so much she almost can't function.

[GoMuskies]

My mother told me that Trump being elected was the worst thing that ever happened to her. I rolled my eyes, which she greatly appreciated. Lol

[Smails]

I would guess that your definition of an 'Anti-Trump' publication is probably pretty much anything that isn't a pro-Trump publication. For that matter, most of the 'Biden has Dementia' articles I have seen have come from anti-Biden (or Pro-Trump) sources. Even the one from WAPO is an op-ed written but a guy who worked for Bush and Rumsfeld. Do those bear a similar standard of dismissal due to bias?

To answer your question directly: No, I don't he is suffering from dementia. I'm not convinced that Biden is either, though. Biden was never known for his eloquence. We may just be seeing an older, slower version of the gaffe-prone Joe Biden we have seen for the last 12+ years.

I appreciate your honesty. I think lack of eloquence is a really far reach from not being able to express a cogent thought. For the record, I have never read a 'Biden has dementia' article (I don't read any Op-eds). My opinions are based on watching him speak and how he reacts when the heat gets turned up. For the sake of our country I hope you're right and I'm wrong about Joe Biden.

[boozehound]

I appreciate your honesty. I think lack of eloquence is a really far reach from not being able to express a cogent thought. For the record, I have never read a 'Biden has dementia' article (I don't read any Op-eds). My opinions are based on watching him speak and how he reacts when the heat gets turned up. For the sake of our country I hope you're right and I'm wrong about Joe Biden.

I mean, me too. I'm definitely not sure. I'm also not excited about Joe Biden as President. I'm more excited about Biden than I would have been for Warren or (God forbid) Sanders.

[Masterofreality]

Kavanugh's story was uncorroborated because the Republican Senate was too chicken shit to call the witness who was in the room.

If you read the Mueller report, you'd know there is plenty of evidence of Russian influence on social media to benefit Trump's candidacy.

And of course, Trump didn't sign the check to Stormy.

I hope you get your refund from TU.

C'mon Paul. Ford's FAMILY wouldn't even go along with her craziness. And there were sworn statements under penalty of perjury obtained from others that were around...but not in the "room" BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER A ROOM THAT IT HAPPENED IN!

The Mueller repost had nothing to do with the Post story in question. Sargent, the writer, wrote about THIS campaign, not 2016 and was accusing Trump of
getting positive influence from North Korea and Russia...totally unverified, hence a Libel lawsuit.

And Stormy Daniels tried to sue Trump after signing a non-disclosure agreement It was summarily dismissed..... By a California judge. Of course her "lawyer" Avenatti got sent to jail, but whatever.

Try to keep up Paul.

[paulxu]

So, why didn't the Senate call Kavanaugh's buddy and have him say "there wasn't any room." Really...that's the best you got? There was no room?

Sorry I haven't kept up. I could have sworn that was Trump's name on the check to cover some of her payments. Are you saying it wasn't?

[XU 87]

This is just a straight-up falsehood. People have been questioning Trump's mental state, and specifically whether he might have dementia, for several years now. Some of these are pretty thorough in their evaluation of the reasoning behind the assertion.

USA Today Op Ed from 2009 Titled "Does Trump Have Dementia"/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/09/does-donald-trump-have-dementia-we-need-know-psychologist-column/3404007002/)

Article from the Atlantic 2019: Is there something Neurologically Wrong with Trump? (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/01/trump-cog-decline/548759/)

Here's one from 2015 (https://lawsuit.org/does-trump-have-dementia-analyzing-his-speech-changes-over-time/)

LOL. Do you have any editorials from NY Times and Wash. Post? How about The New Yorker?

[paulxu]

Here's one from the Washington Post. It's by that crazy liberal Michael Gerson; he was George W. Bush's head speech writer.
Bound to be a far left kinda guy. Or, perhaps a reasonable Republican; I haven't given up hope there are some out there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/27/trumps-words-during-coronavirus-crisis-have-been-monument-his-mediocrity/

[XU 87]

Here's one from the Washington Post. It's by that crazy liberal Michael Gerson; he was George W. Bush's head speech writer.
Bound to be a far left kinda guy. Or, perhaps a reasonable Republican; I haven't given up hope there are some out there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/27/trumps-words-during-coronavirus-crisis-have-been-monument-his-mediocrity/


I'm no fan of Trump, but don't make arguments that Trump has dementia via left wing editorials. As for the one you link, which is not about his "dementia", the Bushes hate Trump, as do plenty of other republicans. No secret there.

[Masterofreality]

So, why didn't the Senate call Kavanaugh's buddy and have him say "there wasn't any room." Really...that's the best you got? There was no room?

Sorry I haven't kept up. I could have sworn that was Trump's name on the check to cover some of her payments. Are you saying it wasn't?

Didn't need to because Ford had no evidence to corroborate her fantasy while Kavanaugh had plenty to corroborate his facts. .

And I have zero idea what Trump paid Daniels for. Do you? Were you actually "in the room" as you say?

Those cases are over, get back to the topic Paul of Post bias against Trump rather than trying to deflect
You got nothing.

[Masterofreality]

So, why didn't the Senate call Kavanaugh's buddy and have him say "there wasn't any room." Really...that's the best you got? There was no room?

Sorry I haven't kept up. I could have sworn that was Trump's name on the check to cover some of her payments. Are you saying it wasn't?

Didn't need to because Ford had no evidence to corroborate her fantasy while Kavanaugh had plenty to corroborate his facts. .

And I have zero idea what Trump paid Daniels for. Do you? Were you actually "in the room" as you say?

Those cases are over, get back to the topic Paul of Post bias against Trump rather than trying to deflect
You got nothing.

[boozehound]

LOL. Do you have any editorials from NY Times and Wash. Post? How about The New Yorker?

I'm not sure what this means. I'll refer you back to my earlier point and exchange with Smails.


I'm no fan of Trump, but don't make arguments that Trump has dementia via left wing editorials. As for the one you link, which is not about his "dementia", the Bushes hate Trump, as do plenty of other republicans. No secret there.

Which does bring me to this point that Trump supporters and defenders (even the pretend supporters) love: Essentially invalidating any criticism of Trump unless it comes from one of the conservative-sanctioned media sources, which rarely (if ever) criticize Trump. It's a phenomenal way to create your own echo chamber. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't come from an 'approved' media source without giving it a second thought.

[xudash]

I'm not sure what this means. I'll refer you back to my earlier point and exchange with Smails.



Which does bring me to this point that Trump supporters and defenders (even the pretend supporters) love: Essentially invalidating any criticism of Trump unless it comes from one of the conservative-sanctioned media sources, which rarely (if ever) criticize Trump. It's a phenomenal way to create your own echo chamber. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't come from an 'approved' media source without giving it a second thought.

Gee, I wonder if that would be because the media sources you most likely prefer are bastions of liberal drivel. Do you seriously want to take the position that CBS, NBC, ABC, the NYT, the WAPO and others are fair and objective?

[noteggs]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-relief-often-pays-workers-more-than-work-11588066200


“Roughly half of all U.S. workers stand to earn more in unemployment benefits than they did at their jobs before the coronavirus pandemic shut down swaths of the U.S. economy. “

Sounds like a “small” problem trying to jump start this economy when this thing is over.

[paulxu]

I'm no fan of Trump, but don't make arguments that Trump has dementia via left wing editorials. As for the one you link, which is not about his "dementia", the Bushes hate Trump, as do plenty of other republicans. No secret there.

That wasn't in reference to the dementia deal. I don't know if that guy hates Trump or not. But he has, in my mind, a reasonable resume of experience in the White House to comment on our current situation.

[GoMuskies]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-relief-often-pays-workers-more-than-work-11588066200



Sounds like a “small” problem trying to jump start this economy when this thing is over.

Well, when their old employers are ready to have them back, we've got to kick as many of them as possible off the dole.

[paulxu]

Didn't need to because Ford had no evidence to corroborate her fantasy while Kavanaugh had plenty to corroborate his facts.


My point exactly. It wasn't a "he said/she said" deal. She claimed a witness. What court in the country (other than the Senate) would NOT call the witness claimed, in that kind of situation. Your argument of "didn't need" is very weak. It's not even an argument. It's a cry for the evidence she claimed.
What would it have hurt to have the guy testify? Nothing. Could have proved (if possible) Kavanuagh's claims.

[noteggs]

Well, when their old employers are ready to have them back, we've got to kick as many of them as possible off the dole.

Agree, but doesn’t this complicate what employers are going to do with wages moving forward?

[bjf123]

I'm not sure what this means. I'll refer you back to my earlier point and exchange with Smails.



Which does bring me to this point that Trump supporters and defenders (even the pretend supporters) love: Essentially invalidating any criticism of Trump unless it comes from one of the conservative-sanctioned media sources, which rarely (if ever) criticize Trump. It's a phenomenal way to create your own echo chamber. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't come from an 'approved' media source without giving it a second thought.

Just like those on the Left invalidate any support of Trump or criticism of Obama, Biden, Clinton if it’s comes from Fox, The Federalist, etc. Does either really surprise anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[noteggs]

What court in the country (other than the Senate) would NOT call the witness claimed, in that kind of situation.

Not to be haste, but the courts would turn down the case to begin with because the statute of limitations. Time plays a tough toll on our memory.

[Masterofreality]

My point exactly. It wasn't a "he said/she said" deal. She claimed a witness. What court in the country (other than the Senate) would NOT call the witness claimed, in that kind of situation. Your argument of "didn't need" is very weak. It's not even an argument. It's a cry for the evidence she claimed.
What would it have hurt to have the guy testify? Nothing. Could have proved (if possible) Kavanuagh's claims.

First of all, what the hell is your point?

Second, the female witness- her supposed friend- she tried to claim denied it ever happened.

Finally, this "case" would have never come within 100 miles of a court because there was zero case.

Only a ridiculously partisan group of Trump Derangement Syndrome sycophants would even throw this trash in front of the entire country, and take valuable government time away from real business. It had no business ever being brought to light or given any legs. Maybe that's why it took Feinstein 2 months to even decide to publicize it?

Try again.

[paulxu]

Agreeing with both of your points, still doesn't obviate the reality of having the witness testify in a Senate hearing (no statute of limitations) would have helped clear it up a little.

His letter to the committee said "I do not recall the party." Why not come to the committee to say that under oath?

(You might know the answer to that question)

[boozehound]

Gee, I wonder if that would be because the media sources you most likely prefer are bastions of liberal drivel. Do you seriously want to take the position that CBS, NBC, ABC, the NYT, the WAPO and others are fair and objective?

Nothing is fair and balanced, unfortunately. It's why it's up to the individual to choose what news they want to consume. It's also unfortunate because it allows people to create a world in which they never have to consider (or oftentimes even hear) an opposing viewpoint. If you do come across an opposing view you can just dismiss the source as biased, therefore it can't possibly be accurate.

I subscribe to two news sources: Wall Street Journal and WAPO. It's not an accident that they lean different ways politically. I won't really watch any news, but when I do it's typically Squawk Box in the morning.

[paulxu]

First of all, what the hell is your point?

I think my point is pretty simple. In a he said/she said, the problem is no witnesses. Here there was a potential witness.

What's so hard about that?

[Juice]

Agreeing with both of your points, still doesn't obviate the reality of having the witness testify in a Senate hearing (no statute of limitations) would have helped clear it up a little.

His letter to the committee said "I do not recall the party." Why not come to the committee to say that under oath?

(You might know the answer to that question)

It was a sowrn affidavit was it not?

And that guy has plenty to lose if he showed. Look at how the MeToo crazies operate. If that guy showed up and testified on behalf of Kavanaugh, do you think that's the end of it? That guy's life is ruined. Those crazies will dox him and his family and make his life a living hell because he had the audacity to defend a "rapist."

[Masterofreality]

I think my point is pretty simple. In a he said/she said, the problem is no witnesses. Here there was a potential witness.

What's so hard about that?

Uh, you mean the "witness" who Blasey Ford said was there- Leland Keyser (woman)- who was supposed to be a friend of Ford and was said to be at the scene by Ford? Welp. She denied that she was ever at a party with Kavanaugh and didn't know who he was.
And it wasn't a "letter" from Mark Judge, it was a sworn statement admissible in court and carrying the weight of perjury if found to be false. He did "testify" , just not in front of Clown Prosecutor Schiff. By the way, Patrick J Smyth, the other guy that Ford named to be allegedly there also denied that he was there. That's strike 3 of people that Ford named who didn't back her up. Add that to her own family who never backed her up.

Yeah, Paul, there were "no witnesses" because it never happened. What's so hard about that?

[paulxu]

Mark Judge said he "I don't recall." Why wouldn't he say that in front of the senators. Maybe they (or she) could have asked him some questions.

Saying he didn't remember is not the same as never happened.

Schiff is not a Senator. The Senate holds hearings on SC nominees. When they have the balls to hold them, unlike ignoring Merrick Garland.

[Masterofreality]

Mark Judge said he "I don't recall." Why wouldn't he say that in front of the senators. Maybe they (or she) could have asked him some questions.

Saying he didn't remember is not the same as never happened.

Schiff is not a Senator. The Senate holds hearings on SC nominees. When they have the balls to hold them, unlike ignoring Merrick Garland.

And about Keyser, and Smyth, and her family?? Nothing from you on them? #Crickets

[paulxu]

I'm thinking everyone's memory from that long ago is foggy (mine sure is). And probably all of the people involved in this...especially if there was drinking.
But I'd still want to hear from the person supposedly IN the room at the time of the incident. That's the "he said/she said" crux of the matter.

[Masterofreality]

I'm thinking everyone's memory from that long ago is foggy (mine sure is). And probably all of the people involved in this...especially if there was drinking.
But I'd still want to hear from the person supposedly IN the room at the time of the incident. That's the "he said/she said" crux of the matter.

Repeats: There was NO room....because it didn't happen. (Done)

[Juice]

Mark Judge said he "I don't recall." Why wouldn't he say that in front of the senators. Maybe they (or she) could have asked him some questions.

Saying he didn't remember is not the same as never happened.

Schiff is not a Senator. The Senate holds hearings on SC nominees. When they have the balls to hold them, unlike ignoring Merrick Garland.

Because he doesn't want to get dragged in front of a committee and have his life ruined because he couldn't recall something that happened decades earlier. Whatever he said in whatever setting was never going to be good enough for the MeToo crazies.

[paulxu]

When there's a "he said/she said" situation, with a potential witness, I always want the witness to testify and be questioned.

He never said he "wasn't there" or " there was no room." He said "I don't recall." A lot different.

I'm also DONE.

[Juice]

Let's see if Joe and Mika hold Biden to this same standard tomorrow on the Morning Joe



Joe Scarborough
@JoeNBC
Brett Kavanaugh should agree to request an FBI investigation.
His reluctance to do so makes no more sense than Democrats asking about the yearbook entries of a 16 year old.


Joe Scarborough
@JoeNBC
·
Sep 24, 2018
What is the GOP afraid of?
If Kavanaugh’s accusers are not telling the truth, give them the FBI investigation they are asking for and put them under oath.
If they lie, they go to jail.
Again, why are Republicans scared of an FBI investigation?

[bjf123]

Let's see if Joe and Mika hold Biden to this same standard tomorrow on the Morning Joe

Don’t hold your breath!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bobbiemcgee]

AG Barr seems to think the republicans idea to destroy Obamacare for 20 million people during a deadly pandemic may be a bad idea. Goes to Supreme Court again in fall, hopefully right before the election. Good time to get rid of the pre-existing condition mandate for all policies. Duh. You had covid? Rejected!!

[noteggs]

Monmouth Poll

At least 32% who believe Reade's allegation against Biden but support him over Trump anyway.

Hate runs deep. Yikes.

[GoMuskies]

I assume those 32% believe similar allegations against Trump, so it's not particularly shocking. If Reade is legit, the Democrats still have time to replace Biden, though.

[JTG]

The Dems won't replace him, they'll vote for him. They move in lockstep. Right or wrong, they stick together. They vote Dem, or stay home. They don't switch. Hitler would have had a field day as a Dem. They would have voted for him, because he was a Dem. It's what Dems do, no free thinking allowed. They do allow idiots though, hence AOC.

[Mrs. Garrett]

The Dems won't replace him, they'll vote for him. They move in lockstep. Right or wrong, they stick together. They vote Dem, or stay home. They don't switch. Hitler would have had a field day as a Dem. They would have voted for him, because he was a Dem. It's what Dems do, no free thinking allowed. They do allow idiots though, hence AOC.

Actually sexual assault allegations are now a huge resume builder for Presidential hopefuls. That's why Trump has racked up like 19 of them. Hopefully, Biden has also paid off some porn stars to lock 2020 up for the Dems.

[bobbiemcgee]

Monmouth Poll

At least 32% who believe Reade's allegation against Biden but support him over Trump anyway.

Hate runs deep. Yikes.

19 women accused Trump, didn't seem to bother his supporters:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/what-about-the-19-women-who-accused-trump/547724/

[Xville]

19 women accused Trump, didn't seem to bother his supporters:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/what-about-the-19-women-who-accused-trump/547724/

It's funny that you and mrs Garrett dont see the irony in your responses.

[Mrs. Garrett]

It's funny that you and mrs Garrett dont see the irony in your responses.

I'm just saying that starting in 2016, it doesn't seem to matter if you like to play a little grab ass with the ladies and want to be President.

[GoMuskies]

You mean grab pussy, right? Grab ass wouldn't cause anyone to bat an eye at this point.

[Mrs. Garrett]

You mean grab pussy, right? Grab ass wouldn't cause anyone to bat an eye at this point.

I just think Biden + clean coal = YUUUUUUGE

[Masterofreality]

And those BS "trumped" up charges vs Michael Flynn have been dropped. The FBI notes showed they were trying to get him to lie, or at least violate the Logan Act, a 1700's law that no one has ever been prosecuted over. No collusion with Russia was ever found, and even the FBI agents thought that there was none, despite Shifty Schiff saying on numerous occasions that he had "Indisputable Evidence" of collusion. What a crock.
Just because he was doing his job by having a conversation with the Russian Ambassador, Flynn was singled out and a life long public servant was smeared, plus I'm sure his legal fees have broken him. The recently released docs that Schiff tried to have sealed show his malfeasance. The Case against Carter Page was found to be bull crap too. So nice job Democrats. Way to waste 2 years and millions of dollars on an "investigation" precipitated by false representations to the FISA court that have, in the end found to be false.

Dems are a sorry lot.

[Masterofreality]

You mean grab pussy, right? Grab ass wouldn't cause anyone to bat an eye at this point.

Welcome to the Euro mode where sex transgression has zero issue in any campaign. None.

[paulxu]

Wonder why Flynn plead guilty to lying if he didn't?

[Masterofreality]

Wonder why Flynn plead guilty to lying if he didn't?

Pressured into it. Just read the stories Paul. Instead of guessing with a question, you could have an answer- that you wouldn't like.
He was told he would have to serve 5 years, but if he admitted to the "false statement" (One Count) and "cooperate" with investigators, he would avoid jail time and would not be sentenced until after Mueller was done. This was Mueller's first stab at justifying his investigation with a "kill" no matter how weak ass it was. The case against Flynn was so weak that the Federal Judge in DC who accepted the plea, Rudolph Contreras, recused himself from the case 5 days after accepting the plea. He didn't want to be responsible for passing a sentence on the guy.

[noteggs]

Like Schumer said:

"Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Might explain a little?

This scares me...

[bobbiemcgee]

Looks like the guy who goes out for Big Mac's has covid.

[xudash]

Wonder why Flynn plead guilty to lying if he didn't?

Paul, seriously, you should be focusing some of your questions on the actions of some of the people on the Far Left. This has been a dangerous ride for this democracy.

[paulxu]

Hey, somebody says to me: plead guilty to lying...and I didn't lie...I'm not pleading guilty. That's pretty straightforward.

I think they had tape of him talking to the Russian guy about sanctions. He told FBI, Congress maybe, and Pence, that he didn't.

Now they are not pressing charges for a technicality. He lied and plead guilty to it.

Do you actually think a former general would say he lied if he didn't? And the underlying thing was telling the Russians they'd relieve sanctions even though Trump wasn't even in office yet. And the sanctions were from Congress for interfering in our elections and going into the Ukraine.

So, I'm sorry Dash. I think Barr has politicized the hell out of the DOJ, and dropping a case where a general pleads guilty is very strange.
I don't think a general with a distinguished career would plead guilty to lying...unless he really did.

[X Factor]

Hey, somebody says to me: plead guilty to lying...and I didn't lie...I'm not pleading guilty. That's pretty straightforward.

I think they had tape of him talking to the Russian guy about sanctions. He told FBI, Congress maybe, and Pence, that he didn't.

Now they are not pressing charges for a technicality. He lied and plead guilty to it.

Do you actually think a former general would say he lied if he didn't? And the underlying thing was telling the Russians they'd relieve sanctions even though Trump wasn't even in office yet. And the sanctions were from Congress for interfering in our elections and going into the Ukraine.

So, I'm sorry Dash. I think Barr has politicized the hell out of the DOJ, and dropping a case where a general pleads guilty is very strange.
I don't think a general with a distinguished career would plead guilty to lying...unless he really did.

Not pressing charges for a technicality? Have you even read anything about his case? He was set up! The FBI, CIA, whoever, found NOTHING on Flynn in regards to Russia and recommended closing his case. Then FBI agent Peter Strzok concocted a scheme to get him fired or to try catching him in lie.

And do you know how many innocent people confess to stuff they didn't do? It's easy to sit there and say you wouldn't do it, and maybe you wouldn't, but it happens.

Ever heard of the Guildford Four? Completely different circumstances, but they all confessed to bombing an English pub that they had nothing to do with.

FBI conspired in Michael Flynn case (https://nypost.com/2020/05/07/fbi-lovebirds-lisa-page-peter-strzok-conspired-in-michael-flynn-case/)


In late 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about two contacts with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn was attempting to withdraw his guilty plea ahead of sentencing. He says he did not intentionally lie.

[bobbiemcgee]

He admitted twice in open court he was guilty. Guess we'll have to let everyone out of jail who is in there for lying to the FBI. Anyway, it's up to Judge Sullivan and nobody's convinced he'll go for the sham.

[Strange Brew]

He admitted twice in open court he was guilty. Guess we'll have to let everyone out of jail who is in there for lying to the FBI. Anyway, it's up to Judge Sullivan and nobody's convinced he'll go for the sham.

I’ll take cups of Bobbie’s whines and tears to go.

They threatened his son and gave him 0 jail time (maybe). You take that deal. Now he’s free with a clean record. You. Can vote in a couple of months. That’s how we change things.

[paulxu]

If you are really interested in this case, I would recommend this review:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/07/to-justify-dismissing-mike-flynns-prosecution-timothy-shea-claims-information-doj-has-always-had-is-new/

(I do sometimes wonder exactly where people get their information.)

It will be interesting to see where the judge goes with this.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/07/trump-pride-and-doj-prejudice-the-flynn-volume/

[Strange Brew]

If you are really interested in this case, I would recommend this review:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/07/to-justify-dismissing-mike-flynns-prosecution-timothy-shea-claims-information-doj-has-always-had-is-new/

(I do sometimes wonder exactly where people get their information.)

It will be interesting to see where the judge goes with this.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/07/trump-pride-and-doj-prejudice-the-flynn-volume/

emptywheel? I too wonder where some people get their information....

[bobbiemcgee]

Now he’s free with a clean record..

Maybe. He can go to work for the Ruskies.

[Masterofreality]

emptywheel? I too wonder where some people get their information....

Yeah.. HAH!! Marcy Wheeler is such a balance fair journalist who derisevly calls the Attorney General of the US "Billy Barr". Just the source you want to quote.
From Wikipedia:
"Wheeler makes occasional contributions to the commentary and analysis section of The Guardian,[6] progressive news site Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, Democracy Now!, and Michigan Liberal"
Oh, and
"She campaigned for Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in 2004, and is a former vice chairwoman of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party."

Yup. No chance of bias there. About the same as overdosing on OAN if your a Righthander.

[Masterofreality]

If you are really interested in this case, I would recommend this review:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/07/to-justify-dismissing-mike-flynns-prosecution-timothy-shea-claims-information-doj-has-always-had-is-new/

(I do sometimes wonder exactly where people get their information.)

It will be interesting to see where the judge goes with this.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/07/trump-pride-and-doj-prejudice-the-flynn-volume/

Total garbage in, total garbage out. Swim little deeper than in the Blue Sea Paul.

[Strange Brew]

Maybe. He can go to work for the Ruskies.

Right, ok. I’ll take a double on those tears.

[xudash]

Maybe. He can go to work for the Ruskies.

Do you walk to school or pack your lunch?

[X-man]

The Dems won't replace him, they'll vote for him. They move in lockstep. Right or wrong, they stick together. They vote Dem, or stay home. They don't switch. Hitler would have had a field day as a Dem. They would have voted for him, because he was a Dem. It's what Dems do, no free thinking allowed. They do allow idiots though, hence AOC.

You sound like you are describing Trumpers, you know the ones who will vote for him even if he gunned someone down on Fifth Avenue.

[paulxu]

Total garbage in, total garbage out. Swim little deeper than in the Blue Sea Paul.

Did you bother to read any of the facts? Do you think he lied about his conversation with the Russian? Or don't you care.

[Juice]

Did you bother to read any of the facts? Do you think he lied about his conversation with the Russian? Or don't you care.

If you're arguing that he still violated the Logan Act, then John Kerry, Chris Murphy, Jimmy Carter and countless other politicians should be prosecuted for it as well.

[Strange Brew]

You sound like you are describing Trumpers, you know the ones who will vote for him even if he gunned someone down on Fifth Avenue.

Was Hitler not a National Socialist?

I wouldn’t vote for him but the NYT and many Dems were very fond for a while.

[paulxu]

If you're arguing that he still violated the Logan Act, then John Kerry, Chris Murphy, Jimmy Carter and countless other politicians should be prosecuted for it as well.

Perhaps this is instructive to your point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-michael-flynn-did-nothing-wrong-why-didnt-he-tell-the-truth/2020/05/07/d3188354-90ab-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html

[Smails]

My god...it is truly a sad day that we have reasonable people honestly thinking that Flynn should be behind bars.

This was a political hit job that basically ruined a man's life. This was an abuse of power that should give everyone pause about what our government is truly capable of when given an agenda to drive. Just sad.

[paulxu]

Count me as unreasonable I guess.

Judge: General Flynn, how do you plead to these charges?
Flynn: Guilty your honor.
Judge: General Flynn, do you understand fully what you have plead to, and that you are doing so under oath and penalty of perjury.
Flynn: Yes your honor.

One year later:

Judge: General Flynn, how do you plead to these charges?
Flynn: Guilty your honor.
Judge: General Flynn, do you understand fully what you have plead to, and that you are doing so under oath and penalty of perjury.
Flynn: Yes your honor.

One year later:

Flynn: I'd like to change my plea.

[Juice]

Count me as unreasonable I guess.

Judge: General Flynn, how do you plead to these charges?
Flynn: Guilty your honor.
Judge: General Flynn, do you understand fully what you have plead to, and that you are doing so under oath and penalty of perjury.
Flynn: Yes your honor.

One year later:

Judge: General Flynn, how do you plead to these charges?
Flynn: Guilty your honor.
Judge: General Flynn, do you understand fully what you have plead to, and that you are doing so under oath and penalty of perjury.
Flynn: Yes your honor.

One year later:

Flynn: I'd like to change my plea.

Part of the plea was so they wouldn't come after his son.

Also, when certain documents weren't turned over in discovery that were possibly exculpatory, do you think that maybe it would have changed his or his attorney's thinking?

[Lamont Sanford]

The Dems won't replace him, they'll vote for him. They move in lockstep. Right or wrong, they stick together. They vote Dem, or stay home. They don't switch. Hitler would have had a field day as a Dem. They would have voted for him, because he was a Dem (or National Socialist). It's what Dems do, no free thinking allowed. They do allow idiots though, hence AOC.

+1. Well said JTG.

[XU 87]

Count me as unreasonable I guess.

Judge: General Flynn, how do you plead to these charges?
Flynn: Guilty your honor.
Judge: General Flynn, do you understand fully what you have plead to, and that you are doing so under oath and penalty of perjury.
Flynn: Yes your honor.

One year later:

Judge: General Flynn, how do you plead to these charges?
Flynn: Guilty your honor.
Judge: General Flynn, do you understand fully what you have plead to, and that you are doing so under oath and penalty of perjury.
Flynn: Yes your honor.

One year later:

Flynn: I'd like to change my plea.

Apparently, those on the left think believe that people accused of crimes are entitled to certain rights and civil liberties, unless the accused is a republican.

The left is also concerned in protecting the rights of someone who claims to have been sexually assaulted, unless the assaulter is a democrat, at which point the accuser is either ignored or called "trailer trash".

[GoMuskies]

It's certainly interesting that someone with paul's politics feels like anyone who has plead guilty is definitely guilty.

[Smails]

Count me as unreasonable I guess.

Judge: General Flynn, how do you plead to these charges?
Flynn: Guilty your honor.
Judge: General Flynn, do you understand fully what you have plead to, and that you are doing so under oath and penalty of perjury.
Flynn: Yes your honor.

One year later:

Judge: General Flynn, how do you plead to these charges?
Flynn: Guilty your honor.
Judge: General Flynn, do you understand fully what you have plead to, and that you are doing so under oath and penalty of perjury.
Flynn: Yes your honor.

One year later:

Flynn: I'd like to change my plea.

Do the actions of our intelligence community give you ANY pause in light of how this went down? Do you feel there was any abuse of power in Flynn's take down? Please tell me you don't think this whole thing is as simple what you quoted above.

[paulxu]

I'm not sure how politics plays into this particular situation from my perspective.
Maybe from those involved (who are in politics) but I'm just trying to deal with the facts off the case.

They have Flynn (I believe) on tape talking to a Russian ambassador about stuff maybe he shouldn't have been discussing.
Whether he did or not, he decided to tell the FBI and Congress and Pence that he was NOT talking to the Russian about those things.

Then he told the judge that he lied, he understood that he lied, and he plead guilty to lying, under oath and penalty of perjury.

Now you can make it as political as you want. I'm making it a case of a former general in the army swearing under oath that he broke the law.

Not really all that difficult. And no, if I was in that situation, I would not do that...and hope none of you would either.

[noteggs]

My god...it is truly a sad day that we have reasonable people honestly thinking that Flynn should be behind bars.

This was a political hit job that basically ruined a man's life. This was an abuse of power that should give everyone pause about what our government is truly capable of when given an agenda to drive. Just sad.

Oh wait, just wait...

Do you mean the job of the FBI is not to get someone to lie then convict them for lying vs investigating if a crime has been made? Weird justice system you live in.

Sarcastic of course and nice post.

[xudash]

Standby: Obamagate may be just around the corner. Buckle-up snowflakes. And some former FBI gentlemen are, uhm, more nervous today, and for very good reason.

[Masterofreality]

I'm not sure how politics plays into this particular situation from my perspective.
Maybe from those involved (who are in politics) but I'm just trying to deal with the facts off the case.

They have Flynn (I believe) on tape talking to a Russian ambassador about stuff maybe he shouldn't have been discussing.
Whether he did or not, he decided to tell the FBI and Congress and Pence that he was NOT talking to the Russian about those things.

Then he told the judge that he lied, he understood that he lied, and he plead guilty to lying, under oath and penalty of perjury.

Now you can make it as political as you want. I'm making it a case of a former general in the army swearing under oath that he broke the law.

Not really all that difficult. And no, if I was in that situation, I would not do that...and hope none of you would either.

The transcript or "tape" has never been made public or released, so other than believing your fake news sources, who twist a story in whatever way they want to to fit thier narrative, (see the Modeling is Bull thread) I'm curious to know how you know what Flynn & the Russian Ambassador discussed, in full context?

[paulxu]

I do not have (as I don't think it's ever been released; originally held back so Flynn could cooperate with other investigations) the transcript.
Yes, a variety of news sources have reported on what was supposedly on it.

Whatever it was, and whatever the implications of it, they are not actually germane to a Lieutenant General from the Army swearing that he lied to the government and to the Vice President.

Why do people have such a problem with that? Do you really think a man of that background and experience would swear to a court that he was lying, when he wasn't? He plead guilty to lying.

[Masterofreality]

I do not have (as I don't think it's ever been released; originally held back so Flynn could cooperate with other investigations) the transcript.
Yes, a variety of FAKE news sources have reported on what was supposedly on it.

Whatever it was, and whatever the implications of it, they are not actually germane to a Lieutenant General from the Army swearing that he lied to the government and to the Vice President.

Why do people have such a problem with that? Do you really think a man of that background and experience would swear to a court that he was lying, when he wasn't? He plead guilty to lying.

Fixed that for you.

[xudash]

I do not have (as I don't think it's ever been released; originally held back so Flynn could cooperate with other investigations) the transcript.
Yes, a variety of news sources have reported on what was supposedly on it.

Whatever it was, and whatever the implications of it, they are not actually germane to a Lieutenant General from the Army swearing that he lied to the government and to the Vice President.

Why do people have such a problem with that? Do you really think a man of that background and experience would swear to a court that he was lying, when he wasn't? He plead guilty to lying.

Paul, do you have any comments on the conduct of certain top FBI officials?

[Masterofreality]

I do not have (as I don't think it's ever been released; originally held back so Flynn could cooperate with other investigations) the transcript.
Yes, a variety of news sources have reported on what was supposedly on it.

Whatever it was, and whatever the implications of it, they are not actually germane to a Lieutenant General from the Army swearing that he lied to the government and to the Vice President.

Why do people have such a problem with that? Do you really think a man of that background and experience would swear to a court that he was lying, when he wasn't? He plead guilty to lying.

This article from NOT the NYT, Washed Out Post or CNN is pretty clear.
And Bloomberg is certainly not a right leaning site.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-08/justice-finally-arrives-for-michael-flynn

[bobbiemcgee]

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-05-07/mike-flynn-department-of-justice-guilty-plea

[xudash]

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-05-07/mike-flynn-department-of-justice-guilty-plea

Harry Litman!

Ha!!

[paulxu]

Paul, do you have any comments on the conduct of certain top FBI officials?

The same comment I'd have about anyone. If they broke the law, hold them accountable.

If they swear that they did break the law, try and hold them to it.

[paulxu]

Mr. Flynn’s request that Russia avoid ‘escalating’ tensions in response to U.S. sanctions in an effort to mollify geopolitical tensions was consistent with him advocating for, not against, the interests of the United States,” Shea wrote. “At bottom, the arms-length communications gave no indication that Mr. Flynn was being ‘directed and controlled by … the Russian federation,’ much less in a manner that ‘threatened … national security.’”

Looks like someone read the transcripts. (DOJ has had them all along of course. They were ordered to release and never did.)

Makes you wonder why Flynn would lie doesn't it.

[paulxu]

We seem to have a desire to "shoot the messenger" if we don't like the message.
Or attribute something to a set of facts if we don't like who is giving them.

With all this back and forth, I would again recommend to you Marcy Wheeler's site and her analysis.
She backs everything, and I mean everything, up with reference to documents, court transcripts, files, etc.
You might find her thoughts on what the judge can do with all of this interesting.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/07/trump-pride-and-doj-prejudice-the-flynn-volume/

And here's some information on people who were interviewed who did read the actual transcripts and then spoke to the White House.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/08/damning-new-details-from-mary-mccord-and-sally-yates/

[Masterofreality]

Keep spinning Paul.

Marcy Wheeler is a clear Leftist Hack who was Howard Dean's Campaign Manager and only writes for Leftist leaning publications.
In other words she is a Steve Bannon, who I don't read either, on the Left.

Do better.

[Masterofreality]

Looks like someone read the transcripts. (DOJ has had them all along of course. They were ordered to release and never did.)

Makes you wonder why Flynn would lie doesn't it.

The DOJ hasn't released them because they are embarrassing as hell- to the FBI and the old DOJ. Barr is probably doing the Department a favor.
And no. Doesn't make me wonder at all. just read the Bloomberg article, or any of the many others that lay the timeline out, including in the Wall Street Journal, and how Peter Strzok (you know, the Agent in the Flynn & Mueller Investigation who was texting with his side piece Lisa Page about undermining Trump's administration as a "back-up plan") pressured Flynn to plead-after assuring him he DID NOT NEED A LAWYER PRESENT in what was supposed to be a casual interview about his contacts months earlier. Then there was manufactured evidence to pressure Flynn to plead- after not even showing HIM the transcripts. Even the majority of the agents that were on the record after interviewing Flynn have said that there was no evidence that he lied, but Mueller was so desperate for a "KILL" in his case that they went after Flynn anyway threatening to prosecute his son too.

This was malfeasance on the highest order. And something that we should all be fearful of when a renegade Justice Department, as was the case under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, just throws ethics to the wind to get "Gotchas".

[paulxu]

Keep spinning Paul.

Marcy Wheeler is a clear Leftist Hack who was Howard Dean's Campaign Manager and only writes for Leftist leaning publications.
In other words she is a Steve Bannon, who I don't read either, on the Left.

Do better.

Stop with this shooting the messenger. It's her own site. Just read the links to actual documents instead of spinning yourself.
Read some files and transcripts. Then make up your own mind.

[Masterofreality]

Stop with this shooting the messenger. It's her own site. Just read the links to actual documents instead of spinning yourself.
Read some files and transcripts. Then make up your own mind.

I read the links. She's still a Leftist Hack. See Paul, I actually read things.

Do you read Breitbart for a differing opinion? Would you shoot that Messenger?

And how about addressing the statements made in the Bloomberg article and the items I noted above? Or do you don't want to bother to read that either because it would ruin your pre-concieved mindset?

[paulxu]

I did read the article. Although persuasive to one side of the story, it omitted some key factors.
It asks this quesion:

But it’s also fair to ask why, just before a new president took office and against its own investigators’ recommendation, the FBI’s leadership kept the case open without proper predication.

You might find the predication by reading the actual interviews of the people involved, rather than just commentators.
You don't like Marcy Wheeler, but she links to documents. I would recommend reading those, including the ones that answer the Bloomberg article question.

You'll find the investigation into Flynn's activities continued because of DOJ concerns with Russian influence in our election process, a concern that even the Republican senate agreed was warranted, and that the intelligence committee rightfully was worried about.

As to how it all might proceed, these two articles (especially the second) might be helpful...despite the source which I'm guessing you might not like:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-judge-should-look-skeptically-at-barrs-latest-effort-to-rescue-another-trump-crony/2020/05/08/e9d8c17a-90c0-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-michael-flynn-did-nothing-wrong-why-didnt-he-tell-the-truth/2020/05/07/d3188354-90ab-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html

[Masterofreality]

I did read the article. Although persuasive to one side of the story, it omitted some key factors.
It asks this quesion:

You might find the predication by reading the actual interviews of the people involved, rather than just commentators.
You don't like Marcy Wheeler, but she links to documents. I would recommend reading those, including the ones that answer the Bloomberg article question.

You'll find the investigation into Flynn's activities continued because of DOJ concerns with Russian influence in our election process, a concern that even the Republican senate agreed was warranted, and that the intelligence committee rightfully was worried about.

As to how it all might proceed, these two articles (especially the second) might be helpful...despite the source which I'm guessing you might not like:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-judge-should-look-skeptically-at-barrs-latest-effort-to-rescue-another-trump-crony/2020/05/08/e9d8c17a-90c0-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-michael-flynn-did-nothing-wrong-why-didnt-he-tell-the-truth/2020/05/07/d3188354-90ab-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html

And I’m guessing that Paul does not like the NEW YORK Post. Probably doesn’t care for Bloomberg either, but this from the NY Post and the previously cited Bloomberg article in Post 5667 of this thread lay it all out.

http://nypost.com/2020/05/07/michael-flynn-case-collapse-latest-sign-russiagate-was-a-complete-fraud/

[paulxu]

Sure, I read that. I hope you keep an open mind that there are a lot of facts missing in that article.

You might try her review this morning of missing information:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/11/bill-barr-did-not-provide-the-most-important-exhibit-to-his-dismissal-motion-the-call-transcripts/

Or of a career prosecutor that can now speak out (those still at DOJ still can't).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/

Perhaps someday we'll see the full transcripts. The concern of people like Sally Yates was that by Flynn lying, he set himself up to be blackmailed by the Russians. That is always a legitimate concern for national security, especially for a brand new administration. You don't want your national security advisor in a position to be compromised. Flynn understood that when he plead guilty twice.

[Masterofreality]

Sure, I read that. I hope you keep an open mind that there are a lot of facts missing in that article.

You might try her review this morning of missing information:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/11/bill-barr-did-not-provide-the-most-important-exhibit-to-his-dismissal-motion-the-call-transcripts/

Or of a career prosecutor that can now speak out (those still at DOJ still can't).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/

Perhaps someday we'll see the full transcripts. The concern of people like Sally Yates was that by Flynn lying, he set himself up to be blackmailed by the Russians. That is always a legitimate concern for national security, especially for a brand new administration. You don't want your national security advisor in a position to be compromised. Flynn understood that when he plead guilty twice.

Aaaaaaand you just keep going back to that truly EMPTY wheel.

The agents had the full transcripts yet didn't close the case. I don't need to hear or read them. 53 people saw them and agreed that there was nothing there, but just go ahead being comfortable in your TDS and delusion.

I have nothing else to say here.

[paulxu]

Wow. Did you bother to read those articles as I read the ones you noted? Guessing not.

[bjf123]

The WaPo article is behind a paywall. Or, I’ve used my allotment of free articles, which I doubt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Juice]

Sure, I read that. I hope you keep an open mind that there are a lot of facts missing in that article.

You might try her review this morning of missing information:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/11/bill-barr-did-not-provide-the-most-important-exhibit-to-his-dismissal-motion-the-call-transcripts/

Or of a career prosecutor that can now speak out (those still at DOJ still can't).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/

Perhaps someday we'll see the full transcripts. The concern of people like Sally Yates was that by Flynn lying, he set himself up to be blackmailed by the Russians. That is always a legitimate concern for national security, especially for a brand new administration. You don't want your national security advisor in a position to be compromised. Flynn understood that when he plead guilty twice.

Why don't those blog posts acknowledge the Brady violations? It's pretty hard to enter a guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently without having access to possibly/actually exculpatory evidence.

[paulxu]

It was my understanding that issue had been raised and disposed of.
If a Brady violation occurred, and a relief was necessary, it might be a new trial, not a dismissal:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016f-109b-d105-af6f-97bb428b0000

[Masterofreality]

It was my understanding that issue had been raised and disposed of.
If a Brady violation occurred, and a relief was necessary, it might be a new trial, not a dismissal:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016f-109b-d105-af6f-97bb428b0000

Ok, one more piece- this from NOT a partisan site, Newsweek. Enough of your leftist siders Paul.

https://www.newsweek.com/curious-case-michael-flynn-opinion-1503033

[Masterofreality]

It was my understanding that issue had been raised and disposed of.
If a Brady violation occurred, and a relief was necessary, it might be a new trial, not a dismissal:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016f-109b-d105-af6f-97bb428b0000

Ok, one more piece- this from NOT a partisan site, Newsweek. Enough of your leftist siders Paul.

https://www.newsweek.com/curious-case-michael-flynn-opinion-1503033

[paulxu]

Ok, one more piece- this from NOT a partisan site, Newsweek. Enough of your leftist siders Paul.

https://www.newsweek.com/curious-case-michael-flynn-opinion-1503033

MOR, I read the article you quoted. Interestingly, Barr's Justice Dept has the transcripts...so why isn't he releasing them if they are exculpatory? Certainly he has that power. You can read the undredacted portions in my earlier links.

You obviously did not read the article I linked to last; you just called it a leftist sider...whatever that is. IF you had bothered to click on it, you would have found not an "article" but the complete opinion of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling on Flynn's motions. You might enjoy it!

[X-man]

MOR, I read the article you quoted. Interestingly, Barr's Justice Dept has the transcripts...so why isn't he releasing them if they are exculpatory? Certainly he has that power. You can read the undredacted portions in my earlier links.

You obviously did not read the article I linked to last; you just called it a leftist sider...whatever that is. IF you had bothered to click on it, you would have found not an "article" but the complete opinion of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling on Flynn's motions. You might enjoy it!
I applaud your efforts, but it is useless. When you already know everything about everything, as MOR does, no other information is relevant unless it supports what you already know to be true. If such information is contrary to what you know, it is fake news and must come from the vast conspiracy of people out to get your fearless leader. Any facts or evidence supporting such fake news is simply more evidence of the conspiracy, and the purveyor of such facts is clearly a leftist/pinko/snowflake (pick a derogatory term) who cannot be trusted. No need to consider sources or the quality of data because it's false on the face of it, and therefore deserves only a Large Eye Roll.

[Masterofreality]

Paul, why did the FBI not share the transcripts with Flynn or allow him to have counsel present?
Below are Direct quotes from the DOJ motion to drop Flynn charges.
This is not “Know It All MOR”. These are facts.
Typical Leftist Name Calling, deflection and finger pointing on your part when you have zero defense.

“After a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant’ssupplementalpleadings,ECF Nos.181,188-190,1the Governmenthas concluded that the interviewof Mr.Flynnwas untetheredto,andunjustifiedby,the FBI’scounterintelligenceinvestigationintoMr.Flynn— a no longer justifiably predicatedinvestigationthat the FBIhad,in the Bureau’sown words, prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.” Ex.1 at 4, FBIFD-1057“ClosingCommunication”Jan.4,2017 (emphasesadded). The Governmentisnot persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basisandthereforedoesnotbelieveMr.Flynn’sstatement swerematerialevenifuntrue. Moreover,we not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyondareasonabledoubt

....After approximatelyfour monthsof investigation,however,the FBI“determinedthat [Mr. Flynn]was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger Crossfire Hurricane umbrella case” andpreparedtoclosetheinvestigation.Ex.1 at3. AtsomepointpriortoJanuary4,2017,the FBIdrafted a “Closing Communication”to effect the termination of the case. See Ex.1; Ex.3 at 2, FBIFD-302,Interview of Mary McCord,July 17,2017 (Date of Entry: Aug. 10,2017). This document noted the specific “goal” and predication for the investigation. Ex.1 at 2. It laid out the numerous searches of holdings and investigative steps that had at each step yielded “no derogatory information”on Mr.Flynn.. noting theabsenceofanyderogatoryinformationorleadinformat ion”).Itstatedthattheinvestigation had failed to produce “any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” Id.at 3(emphasesadded).AnditnotedthatnointerviewofMr.Fly nnwasrequired“aspartofthe case closing procedure,” before concluding:“The FBIis closing this investigation.

...On January 4, 2017, FBIDeputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok learned that “RAZOR’s closure” had not been timely executed,and the counterintelligence investigationinto Mr.Flynn was,unexpectedly,still formally open. Ex.7 at 1-2. Mr.Strzok immediatelyrelayedthe “serendipitouslygood”newsto Lisa Page,the SpecialCounselto FBIDeputyDirectorAndrew McCabe,remarkingthat “our utter incompetenceactually helpsus.” Id.at 1. Ms.Page reacted withsurpriseandrelief. Id. Mr.Strzok,moreover,instructedagentsto“keepitopenfo rnow”at the behest of “the 7th Floor.

.. FBI HandwrittenNotesof MichaelFlynnInterview(January24,2017).
After the interview,the FBIagentsexpresseduncertaintyas to whether Mr.Flynnhad lied. See Ex.4 at 5. FBIagents reported to their leadership that Mr.Flynn exhibited a “very sure demeanor” and “did not give any indicatorsof deception.” Ex.13 at 3. Both of the agents “had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.”

Bottom line. Flynn was railroaded by biased rogue agents. Fact. Case closed.

[xuwillie]

put down the red and blue colored glassed and you can see there is some some shady sh-t going on here... that's all

[Smails]

I applaud your efforts, but it is useless. When you already know everything about everything, as MOR does, no other information is relevant unless it supports what you already know to be true. If such information is contrary to what you know, it is fake news and must come from the vast conspiracy of people out to get your fearless leader. Any facts or evidence supporting such fake news is simply more evidence of the conspiracy, and the purveyor of such facts is clearly a leftist/pinko/snowflake (pick a derogatory term) who cannot be trusted. No need to consider sources or the quality of data because it's false on the face of it, and therefore deserves only a Large Eye Roll.

What are your thoughts on the Flynn situation? Do you think he should be in prison? Do you feel the actions of our intelligence community were above board in this matter? Do you have anything to contribute to this topic besides slow-witted jabs?

[GoMuskies]

I just don't see how anyone can believe that anything Page and/or Strzok were involved in could have been handled fairly.

[X-man]

What are your thoughts on the Flynn situation? Do you think he should be in prison? Do you feel the actions of our intelligence community were above board in this matter? Do you have anything to contribute to this topic besides slow-witted jabs?

What is clear is that (1) Flynn did have discussions with the Russians in violation of the Brady Act, (2) he lied about it, and (3) he admitted that he lied about it. Whether such behavior merited prosecution (given the Brady Act enforcement history) and/or jail is an open question. But it surely isn't totally unreasonable to be concerned as to whether he represented a security risk given his actions.

So this is my "contribution" to complement all my "slow-witted jabs", something that you at least must appreciate given how you characterize my post.

[boozehound]

I just don't see how anyone can believe that anything Page and/or Strzok were involved in could have been handled fairly.

Fair, and probably means that throwing out a conviction would be warranted based on the nature of the communication that we have seen, but I'm also not sure there is clear evidence that they fabricated anything even if there is clear information around their bias.

It never ceases to amuse me that we have a group of people who are absolutely appalled that this completely innocent man is being dragged through the mud arguing with another group that thinks he is completely guilty with neither side considering what seems to me to be the most likely option: He did some shit he shouldn't have done, but probably something that plenty of others have done before. He then got caught by people who happened to think that the Trump administration (and by either direct or indirect extension Flynn) are a bunch of jerkoffs that they would like to see get caught doing something.

Generally when the organizations you lead are 'out to get you' it can be a good indicator that you are a shitty leader.

[Masterofreality]

Generally when the organizations you lead are 'out to get you' it can be a good indicator that you are a shitty leader.

Ya know. I don't know which "Leaders" you are referring to here- Comey or Trump, but generally "Leaders" are at least given the chance to get through their Inauguration before they are deemed to be shitty leaders, but apparently not in this case.

Check the time frame of these occurances, Brother.

[Muskie in dayton]

Ya know. I don't know which "Leaders" you are referring to here- Comey or Trump, but generally "Leaders" are at least given the chance to get through their Inauguration before they are deemed to be shitty leaders, but apparently not in this case.

Check the time frame of these occurances, Brother.
Agreed. Same thing happened to Obama. Partisanship is destroying the country. People need to stop being Democrats or Republicans, and start being Americans first.

[xudash]

Fair, and probably means that throwing out a conviction would be warranted based on the nature of the communication that we have seen, but I'm also not sure there is clear evidence that they fabricated anything even if there is clear information around their bias.

It never ceases to amuse me that we have a group of people who are absolutely appalled that this completely innocent man is being dragged through the mud arguing with another group that thinks he is completely guilty with neither side considering what seems to me to be the most likely option: He did some shit he shouldn't have done, but probably something that plenty of others have done before. He then got caught by people who happened to think that the Trump administration (and by either direct or indirect extension Flynn) are a bunch of jerkoffs that they would like to see get caught doing something.

Generally when the organizations you lead are 'out to get you' it can be a good indicator that you are a shitty leader.

Or that you're an effective leader and that your policies and actions are a direct threat to certain "organizations" unethical practices.

[Mrs. Garrett]

Ya know. I don't know which "Leaders" you are referring to here- Comey or Trump, but generally "Leaders" are at least given the chance to get through their Inauguration before they are deemed to be shitty leaders, but apparently not in this case.

Check the time frame of these occurances, Brother.

I had a pretty good idea he was a shitty leader based on the multiple bankruptcies his companies have filed for prior to his becoming President.

The only thing he was really good as was self-promotion and reality television.

Congratulations on buying into the con.

[paulxu]

Paul, why did the FBI not share the transcripts with Flynn or allow him to have counsel present?
Below are Direct quotes from the DOJ motion to drop Flynn charges.
This is not “Know It All MOR”. These are facts.
Typical Leftist Name Calling, deflection and finger pointing on your part when you have zero defense.

Clearly you never read anything I provide. That's OK I guess.
But for reference purposes to your question, Barr's DOJ has still not provided Flynn the complete transcripts. There's probably a good reason.
It was established, and Barr's DOJ defended as late as last Nov. that the guilty pleas of Flynn were proper. Now he's changed his mind.

I don't believe I've ever called you a name as you suggest. Can you quote me where I have? Apologies in advance if I did and don't remember.

As to the position I take, it's not leftist or rightist, it's hopefully on the side of the rule of law. I am concerned Barr is not following it.

I am joined in my concern by 2100+ and counting former Federal Judges, Inspector Generals, District Attorneys and staff of all levels.
These are former career DOJ people who served both parties across decades of our recent history.
If you read nothing else I note to your attention, please read their letter:

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-flynn-case-7c38a9a945b9

[boozehound]

Ya know. I don't know which "Leaders" you are referring to here- Comey or Trump, but generally "Leaders" are at least given the chance to get through their Inauguration before they are deemed to be shitty leaders, but apparently not in this case.

Check the time frame of these occurances, Brother.

I disagree. Your resume as a leader follows you throughout your life and career. It's why your leadership brand is important. People want to follow good leaders and they avoid bad leaders. Good leaders deliver great results for two reasons: (1) They lead with principles and make good decisions more often then not (and quickly identify and correct bad decisions) and (2) they motivate and attract the best talent.


Agreed. Same thing happened to Obama. Partisanship is destroying the country. People need to stop being Democrats or Republicans, and start being Americans first.

Thank you! For example: If you think months of Benghazi trials were completely justified, but then also think that investigating Flynn is a 'witch hunt' I don't understand how your decision making process works. I guess you just turn on Fox in the morning and let them tell you what you think.


Or that you're an effective leader and that your policies and actions are a direct threat to certain "organizations" unethical practices.

Riiiighhht.

[noteggs]

What is clear is that (1) Flynn did have discussions with the Russians in violation of the Brady Act, (2) he lied about it, and (3) he admitted that he lied about it. Whether such behavior merited prosecution (given the Brady Act enforcement history) and/or jail is an open question. But it surely isn't totally unreasonable to be concerned as to whether he represented a security risk given his actions.

So this is my "contribution" to complement all my "slow-witted jabs", something that you at least must appreciate given how you characterize my post.

Brady act? Do you mean Logan act?

Now Judge Sullivan did utilize the “Brady rule” which requires prosectors to disclose favorable or exculpatory evidence to the defense.

[X-man]

Brady act? Do you mean Logan act?

Now Judge Sullivan did utilize the “Brady rule” which requires prosectors to disclose favorable or exculpatory evidence to the defense.

I did mean "Logan Act". Thanks.

[noteggs]

After watching clips from the medical expert hearing yesterday, think Senator Kaine borrowed his kids Antifa bandanna. Well, at least he was being compliant.

[X Factor]

Biden's got some explainin' to do...

https://nypost.com/2020/05/12/get-ready-for-obamagate-to-become-obamabidengate-goodwin/

[paulxu]

The judge in the Flynn case just appointed another judge to write a brief on whether Flynn should be held in criminal contempt for perjury.
(maybe because he swore to the court twice that he lied to the FBI, and now is saying he didn't)

The judge appointed, use to be a federal prosecutor, who put John Gotti away.

[GoMuskies]

So they might try to get him for perjury for his allocution after his guilty plea? Yikes.

[XU 87]

The judge in the Flynn case just appointed another judge to write a brief on whether Flynn should be held in criminal contempt for perjury.
(maybe because he swore to the court twice that he lied to the FBI, and now is saying he didn't)

The judge appointed, use to be a federal prosecutor, who put John Gotti away.

This is now a kangaroo court.

[X Factor]

The judge in the Flynn case just appointed another judge to write a brief on whether Flynn should be held in criminal contempt for perjury.
(maybe because he swore to the court twice that he lied to the FBI, and now is saying he didn't)

The judge appointed, use to be a federal prosecutor, who put John Gotti away.

This is unprecedented and a complete joke.

http://andmagazine.com/talk/2020/05/13/judge-sullivan-draws-the-line-seeks-to-stop-coup-inquiry/

[XU 87]

This is unprecedented and a complete joke.

http://andmagazine.com/talk/2020/05/13/judge-sullivan-draws-the-line-seeks-to-stop-coup-inquiry/

That is a good article, particularly describing what the role of a judge is supposed to be. This judge has now assumed the role of a prosecutor. He should be removed from this case. Of course, the left wing media won't say a word about this. Hypocrites to the highest degree. There's no standard like a double standard.

Here's another good article from a former NYC federal prosecutor:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/the-politicized-order-inviting-amicus-briefs-against-the-flynn-cases-dismissal/

[boozehound]

Biden's got some explainin' to do...

https://nypost.com/2020/05/12/get-ready-for-obamagate-to-become-obamabidengate-goodwin/

Ahh. The highly credible New York Post. Can someone explain to me what Obamagate even is? A google search only turns up a crazy tweet from Trump with no context and a few articles from highly partisan sources, which also provide essentially no detail except that we should be investigating Obama for something (but not sure what). Are people really this dumb?

[XU 87]

Ahh. The highly credible New York Post. Can someone explain to me what Obamagate even is? A google search only turns up a crazy tweet from Trump with no context and a few articles from highly partisan sources, which also provide essentially no detail except that we should be investigating Obama for something (but not sure what). Are people really this dumb?

You don't know what it is because the left wing media that you go to either 1) isn't reporting about it or 2) simply says "it's a distraction from what Trump has done". It's no surprise the left wing media doesn't give a damn when a republican's civil rights are completely trampled over by the highest levels of government. If Mike Flynn were a democrat who got destroyed by a republican administration, you can be assured that this story would constantly be all over the news, and you wouldn't be asking the question, "What's this all about?"

This story is just another example of why the left wing media has zero credibility with anyone except for left wingers. I"m still waiting for the media to destroy Biden the way they destroyed Kavanaugh. At least we can agree that Biden's accuser actually met Biden.

And as for your criticism of the article coming from the NY Post, weren't you the person that wrote this earlier in this thread (on 4/29/20 at 4:25 to be exact):

"Which does bring me to this point that Trump supporters and defenders (even the pretend supporters) love: Essentially invalidating any criticism of Trump unless it comes from one of the conservative-sanctioned media sources, which rarely (if ever) criticize Trump. It's a phenomenal way to create your own echo chamber. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't come from an 'approved' media source without giving it a second thought."

[STL_XUfan]

Can someone explain to me what Obamagate even is?

Below is a couple of articles by Tim Miller that discuss the theory (Tim Miller is a former RNC spokesperson and communication director for Jeb Bush, but also very anti-trump, so obviously a lean on the story).

https://thebulwark.com/taking-obamagate-seriously/

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-what-reality-looks-like-from-inside-trump-world/

[paulxu]

Our intelligence agencies assessed that Russia interfered in our election.
Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation agreed with this assessment.
The FBI was taping Russian officials because of the interference.
They got Flynn on tape.
He lied to them about that and his unregistered work for another foreign government, Turkey.
He lied to the Vice President and others about those items
He was caught in his lies. The President fired him for lying to the Vice President and others.
He was prosecuted for lying. He plead guilty twice, under oath, and at the risk of perjury to the crimes.
He was scheduled to be sentenced...and Barr had the DOJ withdraw the charges that they pursued for 3 years, and as late as last November.
All of a sudden he wants to withdraw them.

VERY unusual. I think (of course don't know) that the judge could have just ignored the attempted withdrawal, said "the case has been settled and I'm in the sentencing phase."
I'm guessing it so unusual, and of course subjects Flynn to perjury since he swore under oath twice that he was guilty, that the judge needed an outside person to look at it. Another Federal judge seems like a good idea.

I know you got those two articles supporting the conspiracy ideas. But I'll still go with the (now) 2300+ former judges, prosecutors, etc who think that the judge is doing the right thing:

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-flynn-case-7c38a9a945b9

[XU 87]

Our intelligence agencies assessed that Russia interfered in our election.
Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation agreed with this assessment.
The FBI was taping Russian officials because of the interference.
They got Flynn on tape.
He lied to them about that and his unregistered work for another foreign government, Turkey.
He lied to the Vice President and others about those items
He was caught in his lies. The President fired him for lying to the Vice President and others.
He was prosecuted for lying. He plead guilty twice, under oath, and at the risk of perjury to the crimes.
He was scheduled to be sentenced...and Barr had the DOJ withdraw the charges that they pursued for 3 years, and as late as last November.
All of a sudden he wants to withdraw them.

VERY unusual. I think (of course don't know) that the judge could have just ignored the attempted withdrawal, said "the case has been settled and I'm in the sentencing phase."
I'm guessing it so unusual, and of course subjects Flynn to perjury since he swore under oath twice that he was guilty, that the judge needed an outside person to look at it. Another Federal judge seems like a good idea.

I know you got those two articles supporting the conspiracy ideas. But I'll still go with the (now) 2300+ former judges, prosecutors, etc who think that the judge is doing the right thing:

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-flynn-case-7c38a9a945b9

Who cares when a republican's civil rights are trampled over by the highest levels of government? Who cares when a judge completely abdicates his role and now decides he also needs to become the prosecutor in the case before him? After all, it's a republican, and when it's a republican, different rules should and need to be applied. The end justifies the means, no matter how wrong and unconstitutional the means are. Flynn should get treated differently than everyone else- he's not only a republican, but even worse, he was once in the Trump administration.

It's hypocrisy to it's highest degree. But there's no standard like a double standard.

This judge should be removed from this case. What he is doing is not only legally and constitutionally wrong, but probably unethical.

[paulxu]

Who cares when a republican's civil rights are trampled over by the highest levels of government? Who cares when a judge completely abdicates his role and now decides he also needs to become the prosecutor in the case before him? After all, it's a republican, and when it's a republican, different rules should and need to be applied. The end justifies the means, no matter how wrong and unconstitutional the means are. Flynn should get treated differently than everyone else- he's not only a republican, but even worse, he was once in the Trump administration.

It's hypocrisy to it's highest degree. But there's no standard like a double standard.

This judge should be removed from this case. What he is doing is not only legally and constitutionally wrong, but probably unethical.

I don't even know what all that means? Flynn plead guilty twice, under penalty of perjury.
The judge could sentence him and go home. That he's letting it play out seems very "judicial."
Do you understand that the same people who prosecuted him for all that time, and secured the guilty plea, are now changing their minds?
Do you care it might be political? That it almost never happens? That the lead prosecutor excused himself when Barr intervened. Just like 4 of them did when Barr intervened on Stone.
Perhaps this would help from one of the Stone prosecutors:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/

[boozehound]

You don't know what it is because the left wing media that you go to either 1) isn't reporting about it or 2) simply says "it's a distraction from what Trump has done". It's no surprise the left wing media doesn't give a damn when a republican's civil rights are completely trampled over by the highest levels of government. If Mike Flynn were a democrat who got destroyed by a republican administration, you can be assured that this story would constantly be all over the news, and you wouldn't be asking the question, "What's this all about?"

This story is just another example of why the left wing media has zero credibility with anyone except for left wingers. I"m still waiting for the media to destroy Biden the way they destroyed Kavanaugh. At least we can agree that Biden's accuser actually met Biden.

And as for your criticism of the article coming from the NY Post, weren't you the person that wrote this earlier in this thread (on 4/29/20 at 4:25 to be exact):

"Which does bring me to this point that Trump supporters and defenders (even the pretend supporters) love: Essentially invalidating any criticism of Trump unless it comes from one of the conservative-sanctioned media sources, which rarely (if ever) criticize Trump. It's a phenomenal way to create your own echo chamber. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't come from an 'approved' media source without giving it a second thought."

So what is it? I'm a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal in addition to the Washington Post and read both daily. I think all would argue that WSJ leans right, although not nearly as much as other sources. I'm not seeing anything on WSJ about 'Obamagate'. Am I creating my own echo chamber by not taking isolated articles from heavily partisan sources as fact?

I guess you get to believe anything when you are willing to discredit the entire mainstream media but believe 1 New York Post article that provide essentially no supporting data.

[XU 87]

I don't even know what all that means? Flynn plead guilty twice, under penalty of perjury.
The judge could sentence him and go home. That he's letting it play out seems very "judicial."
Do you understand that the same people who prosecuted him for all that time, and secured the guilty plea, are now changing their minds?
Do you care it might be political? That it almost never happens? That the lead prosecutor excused himself when Barr intervened. Just like 4 of them did when Barr intervened on Stone.
Perhaps this would help from one of the Stone prosecutors:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/

It's just sad that those on the left care about civil liberties only when they affect those on the left. Everyone else can and should be treated differently because the end justifies the means. Sad to say, but that's where we are.

[XU 87]

So what is it? I'm a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal in addition to the Washington Post and read both daily. I think all would argue that WSJ leans right, although not nearly as much as other sources. I'm not seeing anything on WSJ about 'Obamagate'. Am I creating my own echo chamber by not taking isolated articles from heavily partisan sources as fact?

I guess you get to believe anything when you are willing to discredit the entire mainstream media but believe 1 New York Post article that provide essentially no supporting data.

I just find it interesting that you don't know anything about this. Not unexpected, but interesting. But it certainly proves my point that the media won't cover this story because it hurts democrats.

As for the WSJ, here's the story that ran last night:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-unmaskers-unmasked-11589411876

[xudash]

Our intelligence agencies assessed that Russia interfered in our election.
Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation agreed with this assessment.
The FBI was taping Russian officials because of the interference.
They got Flynn on tape.
He lied to them about that and his unregistered work for another foreign government, Turkey.
He lied to the Vice President and others about those items
He was caught in his lies. The President fired him for lying to the Vice President and others.
He was prosecuted for lying. He plead guilty twice, under oath, and at the risk of perjury to the crimes.
He was scheduled to be sentenced...and Barr had the DOJ withdraw the charges that they pursued for 3 years, and as late as last November.
All of a sudden he wants to withdraw them.

VERY unusual. I think (of course don't know) that the judge could have just ignored the attempted withdrawal, said "the case has been settled and I'm in the sentencing phase."
I'm guessing it so unusual, and of course subjects Flynn to perjury since he swore under oath twice that he was guilty, that the judge needed an outside person to look at it. Another Federal judge seems like a good idea.

I know you got those two articles supporting the conspiracy ideas. But I'll still go with the (now) 2300+ former judges, prosecutors, etc who think that the judge is doing the right thing:

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-flynn-case-7c38a9a945b9

Paul, you seem to truly hate Flynn. You are obsessed with him. Please don't come back with a comment about it being about JUSTICE and DOING WHAT'S RIGHT and HE BROKE THE LAW AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED, etc. Please don't do that. Please come back with something else; some other explanation for your obsession with this case. If it's about justice, then you should be appalled at the conduct of a number of people on your side of the aisle.

On that note, what I don't get about all this, as it pertains to you, is your complete lack of acknowledgement of all the bullshit moves and actions made by certain Far Left politicians, by certain high ranking officials at the FBI, and others.

Unrelated to Flynn, if we want to focus for a minute on true leadership and what is right for America, why does your party keep stuffing non-sense into legislative proposals that should be meant to specifically address economic support and relief efforts in the face of COVID-19? What do the performing arts have to do with COVID-19:

- $25 million in the Senate bill went to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. During the past ten years, the center received $68.3 million in federal grants (2010-2019). The Kennedy Center has total assets of $557 million. The Pelosi bill earmarked $35 million.

- $75 million in the Senate bill funded the Corporation For Public Broadcasting. Why do National Public Radio and Big Bird get a coronavirus subsidy? The Pelosi bill allocated $300 million.

- $1.2 billion in the Pelosi bill to require airlines to purchase expensive “renewable” jet fuel. It was $200 million per year in grants (2021-2026) to “develop, transport, and store sustainable aviation fuels that would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.” The Senate bill eliminated this provision.

- What is the public purpose for the Smithsonian Institution receiving an additional $7.5 million in this time of crisis?

While governors begged for vital medical supplies, the spending packages each contained massive increases even in obscure, small agencies.

Now we are in this most recent round, having to deal with her bullshit, which will be DOA in the Senate. Why would Pelosi have the audacity to offer legislation that bails out state governments, when everyone knows - KNOWS - that her intent is to help shore-up the budgets of liberal blue states that have mismanaged themselves for years? Leftist politics. Are you proud of all this?

Getting back to the General, along the way, he has been pressured to an extraordinary level. He has been virtually ruined financially. They threatened to ruin his son. I believe his conduct was no worse than that of many people who came before him, and from different offices. Clinton lied about getting sucked off in the Oval Office. He avoided articles of impeachment of perjury and obstruction of justice. Paul, it all depends upon what the definition of "IS" is..... Yeah, right.

Have you ever bothered to look at Flynn's resume? His accomplishments as an AMERICAN?

Lastly, where do you think all this is headed? The last thing that the corrupt people you appear to follow and admire wanted to have happen was to have Bill Barr show up at the Justice Department. Desperate moves are being made now, especially now that the heat lamp has turned. The media? Mentally checked out to the point of Chuck Todd forcing NBC into a formal apology, and journalists sitting in press conferences asking inane and bated questions. Way to pull together for the benefit of the country. Way not to report more often on the good things that are happening across the country. Let's focus on the bad! Let's continue to put the guy - Trump - in as bad a light as possible, even when it means cutting video tape. Politically? A judge goes off half-cocked in an effort to drag Flynn down at all costs.

Where do you think this is headed? Do you believe that Comey is a great AMERICAN?

[noteggs]

You don't know what it is because the left wing media that you go to either 1) isn't reporting about it or 2) simply says "it's a distraction from what Trump has done". It's no surprise the left wing media doesn't give a damn when a republican's civil rights are completely trampled over by the highest levels of government. If Mike Flynn were a democrat who got destroyed by a republican administration, you can be assured that this story would constantly be all over the news, and you wouldn't be asking the question, "What's this all about?"

About to post something similar and wanted to add an example. You didn’t hear much about (a few outlets) Obama’s pardoning of General James Cartwright. His only conviction was he plead guilty to lying to the FBI. Hmmm. Can you imagine how the press or Democrats would have acted if Trump pardoned Flynn?

Interesting read and some similarities between the Cartwright and Flynn cases.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/314674-obama-pardons-james-cartwright-in-leak-case

[XU 87]

Please come back with something else; some other explanation for your obsession with this case. If it's about justice, then you should be appalled at the conduct of a number of people on your side of the aisle.



Those on the left definitely aren't appalled or in any way bothered by what occurred. In fact, the left applauds the conduct that was used. And that's because the conduct was used against a republican who worked in the Trump administration. Sad but true the double standards the left now lives by and their blatant disregard of civil liberties when it involves someone who "isn't one of their own".

[X Factor]

Paul is too blinded by his political ideology to see how the US government trampled on the rights of General Flynn.

He NEVER should've been interviewed in the FIRST place. READ ABOUT IT!

They (FBI, CIA) found NOTHING nefarious about Flynn and Russia. They were going to close the case, until Comey decided not to, and sent over some FBI agents to the White House to question Flynn, without any legal representation present.

If Flynn thought they were coming over to get him to lie (like they were), he probably wouldn't have even talked to them, or he would have made damn sure he had lawyers present. They threatened to ruin him and his family.

There is so much wrong with this case. It should scare every American that values their rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution.

[xudash]

Paul is too blinded by his political ideology to see how the US government trampled on the rights of General Flynn.

He NEVER should've been interviewed in the FIRST place. READ ABOUT IT!

They (FBI, CIA) found NOTHING nefarious about Flynn and Russia. They were going to close the case, until Comey decided not to, and sent over some FBI agents to the White House to question Flynn, without any legal representation present.

If Flynn thought they were coming over to get him to lie (like they were), he probably wouldn't have even talked to them, or he would have made damn sure he had lawyers present. They threatened to ruin him and his family.

There is so much wrong with this case. It should scare every American that values their rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution.

Which is why I posted what I posted.

Turn it around. Imagine it happening to you.

Responsible people who care about this democracy would rise above politics to focus on resisting or stopping such behavior. It simply isn't "AMERICAN".

[boozehound]

I just find it interesting that you don't know anything about this. Not unexpected, but interesting. But it certainly proves my point that the media won't cover this story because it hurts democrats.

As for the WSJ, here's the story that ran last night:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-unmaskers-unmasked-11589411876

This is what Obamagate is?

What you came up with was an Op-Ed piece which I don't necessarily consider to be 'news'. Hence the creation of a different section called 'Opinion'. It's for things that are opinions, and not substantiated 'news'. If this was, as the Post seems to think, 'one of the biggest scandals in history' and was appropriately substantiated I would certainly expect WSJ to put it on the front page of the 'news' section of their website.

Listen, if there is credible evidence that Obama acted inappropriately then by all means it should be investigated. Just like the Trump campaign was investigated. Have at it. I haven't waded into the details around this one to have a fully formed opinion of the new details of the Flynn situation, and I'm going just going to spew partisan talking points.

[Juice]

Paul is too blinded by his political ideology to see how the US government trampled on the rights of General Flynn.

He NEVER should've been interviewed in the FIRST place. READ ABOUT IT!

They (FBI, CIA) found NOTHING nefarious about Flynn and Russia. They were going to close the case, until Comey decided not to, and sent over some FBI agents to the White House to question Flynn, without any legal representation present.

If Flynn thought they were coming over to get him to lie (like they were), he probably wouldn't have even talked to them, or he would have made damn sure he had lawyers present. They threatened to ruin him and his family.

There is so much wrong with this case. It should scare every American that values their rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution.

And then the Democrats leaked it to the Washington Post.

[paulxu]

Dash, I don't hate Flynn. I think that Barr is politicizing the DOJ for Trump. He did it for Bush/Reagan with Iran Contra.

Just ignore everything I say, and assume it's from someone is biased. OK?

With that premise in mind, you have to explain (if you read) the letter from 2300 former judges and DOJ personnel.
Are they all some sort of left wing conspirators? I really hope you go back and read it.
Take a minute and look at some of the presidents each of them served...decades of service across Dem and Repub presidents.
You honestly believe each and everyone of those civil servants "hate" Flynn. I know you; you're a whole lot smarter than that.

As for the spending in the bills, you point out the Senate bills and their spending. I'll note to you the Senate is controlled by the Republican party, unless Mitch McConnell changed parties when I wasn't looking.

[paulxu]

You all do realize it was Bill Barr's justice department that took Flynn through his last set of guilty pleas don't you?
Who stood before the judge and handled the facts and guilty pleas.
Not Obama's Justice Department. But Trump's, headed by Barr.

Somehow that seems to escape the conspiracy theorists.

[X-man]

I just find it interesting that you don't know anything about this. Not unexpected, but interesting. But it certainly proves my point that the media won't cover this story because it hurts democrats.

As for the WSJ, here's the story that ran last night:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-unmaskers-unmasked-11589411876

And from the Journal today, another news piece which suggest among other things that such unmasking is neither unusual or political under these circumstances. Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-than-one-dozen-obama-officials-may-have-requested-unmasking-that-revealed-michael-flynn-in-intelligence-reports-11589396531?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2.

I too read the WSJ daily, and I would argue that it's one of the best newspapers in the country even if I don't agree with most of their columnists.

[XU 87]

You all do realize it was Bill Barr's justice department that took Flynn through his last set of guilty pleas don't you?
Who stood before the judge and handled the facts and guilty pleas.
Not Obama's Justice Department. But Trump's, headed by Barr.

Somehow that seems to escape the conspiracy theorists.

And do you realize that it was Bill Barr's Justice dept. that has gone to the court and said, "We (the previous prosecutors and agents who worked on this matter) purposely screwed up. We violated the law. We violated Flynn's rights. He never should have been charged in the first place. The law requires that this case be dismissed?"

I will also add, this all started under Obama's administration, and was continued via career holdovers from that administration.

But what you are really arguing is that if rogue prosecutors and rogue FBI agents violate the civil, criminal, and constitutional rights of a republican, those violations need to be ignored and the republican should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and this is true even if the prosecution says, "We want to drop the case since there is no case." When that happens we can just let the judge also become the prosecutor. And these rights? Those are only for democrats.

[xudash]

Dash, I don't hate Flynn. I think that Barr is politicizing the DOJ for Trump. He did it for Bush/Reagan with Iran Contra.

Just ignore everything I say, and assume it's from someone is biased. OK?

With that premise in mind, you have to explain (if you read) the letter from 2300 former judges and DOJ personnel.
Are they all some sort of left wing conspirators? I really hope you go back and read it.
Take a minute and look at some of the presidents each of them served...decades of service across Dem and Repub presidents.
You honestly believe each and everyone of those civil servants "hate" Flynn. I know you; you're a whole lot smarter than that.

As for the spending in the bills, you point out the Senate bills and their spending. I'll note to you the Senate is controlled by the Republican party, unless Mitch McConnell changed parties when I wasn't looking.

You lost me at Barr politicizing the DOJ. In actuality, Barr is now digging into stuff that has a number of people on the Far Left tightening up. You want JUSTICE? We'll see if it is forthcoming now. The "former" DOJ personnel whom mostly worked for Lynch and Holder? You mean those people?

Do you believe the Republicans drafted and put forward the bullshit in the legislation, or did the Democrats do that? Do you believe the Republicans may have let it fly due to the fact that the Democrats were being obstinate and that action was otherwise desperately needed? We are talking about money for the f'ing Kennedy Center, as but one example, at a time when that was beyond ludicrous. The Republicans didn't put that in. Your folks put that in.

I've repeatedly told myself not to dive into this thread. It is as polarized and inane as the discourse in Washington.

I am stating here that I'm done, and I hope I remain that way.

You stay safe and well up the road.

[X Factor]

Dash, I don't hate Flynn. I think that Barr is politicizing the DOJ for Trump. He did it for Bush/Reagan with Iran Contra.

Just ignore everything I say, and assume it's from someone is biased. OK?

With that premise in mind, you have to explain (if you read) the letter from 2300 former judges and DOJ personnel.
Are they all some sort of left wing conspirators? I really hope you go back and read it.
Take a minute and look at some of the presidents each of them served...decades of service across Dem and Repub presidents.
You honestly believe each and everyone of those civil servants "hate" Flynn. I know you; you're a whole lot smarter than that.

As for the spending in the bills, you point out the Senate bills and their spending. I'll note to you the Senate is controlled by the Republican party, unless Mitch McConnell changed parties when I wasn't looking.

I think you vastly underestimate how many "career" bureaucrats and government officials despise Donald Trump.

[paulxu]

My comment about Barr politicizing the department goes to his overriding federal guidelines on Stone's sentence recommendation, causing 4 prosecutors who handle the case to resign.
And reversing their stance on Flynn.
Both highly unusual.
Do you guys honestly believe those 2300 people, who were appointed and served under many presidents, are actually all out to get Flynn?
There are Republicans and Democrats for sure within the 2300.
Isn't it remotely possible they are legitimately concerned about what is happening?

[paulxu]

ps. The Kennedy Center employs about 3000 people; so a relief for them is similar to a small business

Melania Trump sits on the board.

President Trump was OK with the idea:


But on Wednesday, President Trump defended the $25 million and said he personally approved it.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/senates-coronavirus-stimulus-bill-includes-25m-for-the-kennedy-center-heres-why

[Juice]

My comment about Barr politicizing the department goes to his overriding federal guidelines on Stone's sentence recommendation, causing 4 prosecutors who handle the case to resign.
And reversing their stance on Flynn.
Both highly unusual.
Do you guys honestly believe those 2300 people, who were appointed and served under many presidents, are actually all out to get Flynn?
There are Republicans and Democrats for sure within the 2300.
Isn't it remotely possible they are legitimately concerned about what is happening?

They’re out to get Trump and Flynn is the proxy.

And it’s also highly unethical/illegal to leak the contents of the calls and those involved. Ask James Clapper.
https://twitter.com/thefirstontv/status/1260982326022070274?s=21

[paulxu]

Yup. 2300 Republicans and Democrats.
Let's say they have an average of 10 yrs experience (I'm guessing probably 25)
But, at 10 years each, that's 23,000 man years of experience...all out to get Trump.

Let me get my tinfoil hat on....and off we go :)

[XU 87]

My last post on this topic (hopefully). it is just incredibly ironic, but not surprising, that the left wing and the left wing media are searching for reasons to excuse and in fact applaud the illegal behavior of rogue prosecutors and FBI agents.

[X-man]

My last post on this topic (hopefully). it is just incredibly ironic, but not surprising, that the left wing and the left wing media are searching for reasons to excuse and in fact applaud the illegal behavior of rogue prosecutors and FBI agents.

So you are including the Wall Street Journal as "left wing media"? See the link in post 5728.

[boozehound]

So you are including the Wall Street Journal as "left wing media"? See the link in post 5728.

Are you kidding me, those guys have gone way to the left. :rolleyes:

Even Fox News seems to be taking a cautious approach to this one: They are posting opinions from their commentators but largely seem to be avoiding making this a major issue on the 'news' portion of their website. In fact, their headline story right now appears to be about some kind of 'Carbon Cowboys'. It's crazy that they are not covering the scandal of the century, particularly when it's so open-and-shut.

I'm sure I'm about to be bombarded with links to Op-Ed pieces from Buck Sexton and Rush Limbaugh blowing the whole thing wide open.

[XU 87]

So you are including the Wall Street Journal as "left wing media"? See the link in post 5728.

I couldn't read the article you posted because it was blocked, and my firm WSJ hasn't been delivered lately. But here is what I read in the WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-unmaskers-unmasked-11589411876

And FWIW, I once read something a few years ago discussing which papers and tv news lean left and right. The article said that the WSJ news actually leans left. It's the WSJ editorial dept that is clearly conservative. Not I sure I agree with the first part, but that's what was written, and it was not written by some conservative news site.

(And note to self- I said my earlier post would be my last post on this issue.)

[X-man]

I couldn't read the article you posted because it was blocked, and my firm WSJ hasn't been delivered lately. But here is what I read in the WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-unmaskers-unmasked-11589411876

And FWIW, I once read something a few years ago discussing which papers and tv news lean left and right. The article said that the WSJ news actually leans left. It's the WSJ editorial dept that is clearly conservative. Not I sure I agree with the first part, but that's what was written, and it was not written by some conservative news site.

(And note to self- I said my earlier post would be my last post on this issue.)

As I said before, I don't generally agree with their opinion writers. Your link is to an opinion piece, not a news item. I am a huge fan of their news team...very objective and thoroughly done. Try and read the news piece if you are able.

[XU 87]

As I said before, I don't generally agree with their opinion writers. Your link is to an opinion piece, not a news item. I am a huge fan of their news team...very objective and thoroughly done. Try and read the news piece if you are able.

I read the WSJ all the time, but I start with the editorial page, which I might add, routinely criticizes Trump, which is why he has criticized the WSJ.

[Masterofreality]

This is my (probably) last post on this Michael Flynn debacle.

This from the far from friendly to Trump USA Today.
As many have said. Just hope that you are never a pawn in a miscarriage of justice game like this.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/19/trump-pardon-supreme-court-michael-flynn-no-prison-column/5204421002/

[paulxu]

From the article you note:

Information declassified by Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell and released last week raises more questions about the Flynn case. It shows numerous Obama administration officials asking the National Security Agency to “unmask” information concerning Flynn that had been picked up as part of routine NSA foreign surveillance. This unmasking was taking place well before and well after Flynn’s contact with Kislyak. It involved 39 people, ranging from top intelligence officials to ambassadors to outgoing Vice President Joe Biden.

It seems that it wasn't the NSA who did the wiretap, but the FBI. And it seems there was no "unmasking" as Flynn's name was there all along.
However, unmasking is not illegal and happens all the time (actually thousands of times a year).
Hard to now what is going on for sure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/michael-flynns-name-was-never-masked-in-fbi-document-on-his-communications-with-russian-ambassador/2020/05/20/e94ee050-9a0b-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/e73qYSz978

As to masking/unmasking...I still wish some officials would follow recommended guidelines.

[bjf123]

The link is behind a paywall, so I couldn’t read it. My understanding is that unmasking is perfectly legal, but the person requesting the unmasking has to submit documentation justifying the need to know this person’s name. Apparently, that’s where things fall apart regarding Flynn. That documentation is not there for all of the people who requested it. Maybe it’s been misplaced. Maybe it was never submitted. Who knows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paulxu]

The link is behind a paywall, so I couldn’t read it. My understanding is that unmasking is perfectly legal, but the person requesting the unmasking has to submit documentation justifying the need to know this person’s name. Apparently, that’s where things fall apart regarding Flynn. That documentation is not there for all of the people who requested it. Maybe it’s been misplaced. Maybe it was never submitted. Who knows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry about the paywall deal. As I understand the article, in regards to Flynn's calls with Kislyak, Flynn's name was never "masked" in the reports.
So all this uproar about "unmasking" is not needed. Someone did leak the calls to the media, but that person hasn't been identified.

[Juice]

https://twitter.com/LawrenceBJones3/status/1263816711104606209?s=20

Yikes Joe.

[boozehound]

https://twitter.com/LawrenceBJones3/status/1263816711104606209?s=20

Yikes Joe.

Well that's not good for Biden. At this point I think he probably needs to go not-quite-full Trump and just keep attacking. Apologize and clarify, fine. But don't go on an apology tour. Maybe that's his plan? If it wasn't before maybe it should be now...

He should also file away for future reference that telling black people 'they ain't black' for really any reason is probably never a good idea, but it's a particularly poor choice when you are an old white dude who happens to be running for President.

Edit: On the plus side - this will give us a clear view to what unprincipled pieces of shit almost everybody is. I'll check back in on this post from time to time and coverage develops.

On the Left: WAPO, CNN, etc. are thus far continuing to run stories about hydroxychloroquine and Trump without acknowledgement of Biden's comments. I don't think they will be able to go forever without addressing it, but when they do they will do mental gymnastics to convince themselves that 'its really not that bad', meanwhile they would be out of their goddamned minds if Trump said this. It will be interesting to see if this gets fed through the full far-left 'outrage machine' meat grinder, or if he gets a pass long-term.

On the Right: Foxnews has immediately updated their front page story to reflect the Biden commentary complete with the most hilariously bad picture of Biden they could find. These people are going to act like hypocrites as well. A bunch of people who love Trump because he 'isn't politically correct' and 'says what he is thinking' are going to jump all over Biden for this. They will suddenly be deeply offended and care very much about political correctness as it pertains to this issue. They will do mental gymnastics to explain how this is somehow worse than any of Trump's comments.

It will also illustrate the unfortunate fact that you are ignorant (not stupid, ignorant) if you get your news only from one side of the spectrum, because you aren't actually getting the news.

[paulxu]

On the Left: WAPO, CNN, etc. are thus far continuing to run stories about hydroxychloroquine and Trump without acknowledgement of Biden's comments.

Booze, I think your comments about needing to get all sides is spot on. Those sites are running stories on it though:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-tha-god-you-aint-black/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-says-black-voters-who-arent-already-supporting-him-aint-black/2020/05/22/4466d978-9c39-11ea-ad09-8da7ec214672_story.html

[boozehound]

Booze, I think your comments about needing to get all sides is spot on. Those sites are running stories on it though:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-tha-god-you-aint-black/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-says-black-voters-who-arent-already-supporting-him-aint-black/2020/05/22/4466d978-9c39-11ea-ad09-8da7ec214672_story.html

Fair - however a more than cursory glance at their front page stories certainly doesn't highlight those stories. You have to go digging around in the Politics section. I would think if Trump had said the same thing it would make the front page.

[X Factor]

Crazy Joe tells black people they "ain't" black if they don't vote for him...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBQ4PAT1hTg