CentreAussie
Trusted Member
No, but sleeping with a married man 30 years your senior and then receiving their help probably is.
-
You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
- Thread starter Knox
- Start date
No, but sleeping with a married man 30 years your senior and then receiving their help probably is.
Knox
Queen of the Cunts
No it's not. Almost every male politician whether they win or lose got help and slept around. Again, you just don't like powerful women. Especially if they're black or any other color than pasty.
CentreAussie
Trusted Member
Right, there's nothing seedy about Kamala Harris and Willie Brown. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
Sorry, the 'RaceCard" is not accepted here. Do you have 'American Express' or 'Visa'?
Kiss_My_Axe
Active Member
Read the whole rant before you criticize 
All bullshit aside, Hillary is a lying racist and rapist lover. She allowed OUR people to die in Benghazi. SHE said all black people look the same. SHE said black people need to be brought to heel. SHE had people “bleach” her server. The only collusion was between HER, Russia, Obama and more than likely Trump, but probably in a more obscure way because that’s kinda the point isn’t it?
Let’s be real.
If they really had something and they hate him this much, don’t you think there would be conclusive evidence? They’re stringing people along if you haven’t noticed. It’s like a Tela Novela, or a soap opera, really. There’s never a real conclusion, they just string you along with a new and exciting mystery.
None of these fucks care about anyone!
Looking at the stage, they said Trump needed to accept the outcome of the election. Yet here we are 2 1/2 years later and they are still crying like pussies and they’ve made people as sensitive as one too.
Most of us are not as tough as our great grandparents.
Have y’all still not figured out that these people are working towards the same end goal? They’ve got you calling each other names and putting each other down. You’re divided on every possible line. Let’s not forget that The Clinton’s were guests at Melania and Trump’s wedding. They were friends for YEARS before now. Do none of y’all remember how much shit Obama and Hillary talked to each other and about Bush when they were both trying to win the love of the party? Here we are, a decade or so later, and she, Obama, and Bush we’re acting like the best of friends. Holding hands and kissing each other! Don’t think for a second that Trump won’t be sitting right next to them in 5-6 years.
Yes. The economy is good and unemployment is down...for now. Food prices are about to increase.
Can you imagine if the left and the right got together and said “Yeah. We disagree on some shit, but we will stand together against you as Americans.”
They want us divided. And you’re giving them exactly what they want. They don’t give a FUCK about us! It’s all a game to them. Do not give up your right to defend yourselves and others! Do not comply! This is a fucking GAME to them. It’s a stage. Haven’t you ever noticed that they only go after people with no real power?! Tucker, Alex, Kaitlin, Milo, etc. They don’t go after Hillary for her shit. Not the emails and not The Clinton Foundation and things they did to the Haitians.
Just because they aren’t coming for your side yet doesn’t mean they won’t.
They’re just starting with these people. According to ANTIFA Democrats get the bullet too. MARK MY WORDS. When they do come, it will be with a sadistic smile on their shark faces.
Please see reason.
While we might not agree on certain issues we must obviously agree, as normal caring human beings, that we care about life. Especially the life of children. And helpless animals. Or else why are we even here commenting on the atrocities done to them??? Both sides of the aisle must know that, for the most part, the other side is not inherently evil. We all obviously know that pure, unadulterated evil, exists. We see it here everyday. We all know it should be eradicated so no innocent can ever be harmed.
You will NEVER convince someone to see it your way with violence and verbal attacks. Never. Find a way to agree or we are all, QUITE LITERALLY, FUCKED.
Y’all are better than this bullshit. Find a way to get along because when the pen fails, only the sword is left. No sane person wants that. History has shown how that ends. I reckon this time around the final show will be spectacular...right before we’re all vaporized.
All bullshit aside, Hillary is a lying racist and rapist lover. She allowed OUR people to die in Benghazi. SHE said all black people look the same. SHE said black people need to be brought to heel. SHE had people “bleach” her server. The only collusion was between HER, Russia, Obama and more than likely Trump, but probably in a more obscure way because that’s kinda the point isn’t it?
Let’s be real.
If they really had something and they hate him this much, don’t you think there would be conclusive evidence? They’re stringing people along if you haven’t noticed. It’s like a Tela Novela, or a soap opera, really. There’s never a real conclusion, they just string you along with a new and exciting mystery.
None of these fucks care about anyone!
Looking at the stage, they said Trump needed to accept the outcome of the election. Yet here we are 2 1/2 years later and they are still crying like pussies and they’ve made people as sensitive as one too.
Most of us are not as tough as our great grandparents.
Have y’all still not figured out that these people are working towards the same end goal? They’ve got you calling each other names and putting each other down. You’re divided on every possible line. Let’s not forget that The Clinton’s were guests at Melania and Trump’s wedding. They were friends for YEARS before now. Do none of y’all remember how much shit Obama and Hillary talked to each other and about Bush when they were both trying to win the love of the party? Here we are, a decade or so later, and she, Obama, and Bush we’re acting like the best of friends. Holding hands and kissing each other! Don’t think for a second that Trump won’t be sitting right next to them in 5-6 years.
Yes. The economy is good and unemployment is down...for now. Food prices are about to increase.
Can you imagine if the left and the right got together and said “Yeah. We disagree on some shit, but we will stand together against you as Americans.”
They want us divided. And you’re giving them exactly what they want. They don’t give a FUCK about us! It’s all a game to them. Do not give up your right to defend yourselves and others! Do not comply! This is a fucking GAME to them. It’s a stage. Haven’t you ever noticed that they only go after people with no real power?! Tucker, Alex, Kaitlin, Milo, etc. They don’t go after Hillary for her shit. Not the emails and not The Clinton Foundation and things they did to the Haitians.
Just because they aren’t coming for your side yet doesn’t mean they won’t.
They’re just starting with these people. According to ANTIFA Democrats get the bullet too. MARK MY WORDS. When they do come, it will be with a sadistic smile on their shark faces. Please see reason.
While we might not agree on certain issues we must obviously agree, as normal caring human beings, that we care about life. Especially the life of children. And helpless animals. Or else why are we even here commenting on the atrocities done to them??? Both sides of the aisle must know that, for the most part, the other side is not inherently evil. We all obviously know that pure, unadulterated evil, exists. We see it here everyday. We all know it should be eradicated so no innocent can ever be harmed.
You will NEVER convince someone to see it your way with violence and verbal attacks. Never. Find a way to agree or we are all, QUITE LITERALLY, FUCKED.
Y’all are better than this bullshit. Find a way to get along because when the pen fails, only the sword is left. No sane person wants that. History has shown how that ends. I reckon this time around the final show will be spectacular...right before we’re all vaporized.
Prettypink513
Church Member
I didn't say anything to you, sir. But if the shoe fits, lace them bitches up and wear em. A hurt dog will holler EVERY TIME. Toodles
CentreAussie
Trusted Member
So I assume that after this, that you are going to admit that you didn't actually watch Barrs testimony?
And in case you can't be bothered to watch it, Cable Conspiracy News reported it too...
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/mueller-barr-complained-russia-probe/index.html
Last edited:
Knox
Queen of the Cunts
Me too. But notice how he deflects anything asked of him or told to him and instead asks an entirely different question? Yeah, we all noticed that. And also, he's soooooo entirely interested in American politics yet I never hear of the problems in Australia where he claims he's from. I have four very different friends that live there. Three men and one woman and I'd lay money I know more about the politics of that country than he does.
Last edited:
CentreAussie
Trusted Member
You checked my IP. When that said I was in Australia, you claimed I was using a proxy. What else do you want?
I'll give you my phone number and you can hear my accent for yourself, if that'll satisfy you. I don't talk about the Australian politic because,
A. Everybody else here is American or Canadian,
B. Australian politics is boring as fuck. We have our shit together and the differences between the two major parties amount to economic minutia, that I don't even give a fuck about.
C. US politics is like a soap opera, in stark contrast to what we have here.
D. US politics interests me because the economic and social trends heavily influence what happen here.
E. Because hysterical liberals are amusing to me.
So, you've moved on from 'Russia-gate' to 'Aussie-gate'.... Good for you.
CentreAussie
Trusted Member
Left goes crazy, calls everyone who doesn't agree 'Alt-right'. Well I guess when mainstream liberalism is to the the right of the majority of leftists, everything seems 'Alt-right'.... Whereas conservatives have a backbone. The right knows not to endorse their radicals. The left embrace their extremists.
Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy week.
Showdown looms between Congress and attorney general over Mueller report deadline
WASHINGTON
U.S. Attorney General William Barr is headed for a showdown on Monday with Democrats in Congress, as lawmakers prepared to begin contempt proceedings against the top U.S. law enforcement officer if he fails to hand over the full, unredacted Mueller report.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler gave Barr until 9 a.m. EDT to produce the full report and underlying evidence from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 22-month investigation into Russian election meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Nadler has subpoenaed the material but Barr missed an initial deadline to provide it last week.
Nadler's committee views the full Mueller report as vital to its own corruption and obstruction of justice investigation of President Donald Trump. The chairs of five other House committees investigating the president have also called for its release.
,,, article continues
https://dreamindemon.com/community/threads/trump-and-the-fall-of-democracy-part-two.104043/page-2
Deadline looms on Mueller report as Trump changes position
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's turnabout on whether the special counsel should appear before Congress — "Bob Mueller should not testify," he tweeted — has sparked criticism from Democratic lawmakers eager to question the author of the report on Russia's election interference .
Trump had previously said he would leave the question of Robert Mueller testifying to Attorney General William Barr. The attorney general has said he has no objection to Mueller testifying.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p-changes-position/ar-AAAXNDI?ocid=spartanntp
Watergate had the Nixon tapes. Mueller had Annie Donaldson’s notes.
The notes, scribbled rapidly on a legal pad, captured the fear inside the White House when President Trump raged over the Russia investigation and decreed he was firing the FBI director who led it: “Is this the beginning of the end?”
The angst-filled entry is part of a shorthand diary that chronicled the chaotic days in Trump’s West Wing, a trove that the special counsel report cited more than 65 times as part of the evidence that the president sought to blunt a criminal investigation bearing down on him.
The public airing of the notes — which document then-White House counsel Donald McGahn’s contemporaneous account of events and his fear that the president was engaged in legally risky conduct — has infuriated Trump.
“Watch out for people that take so-called ‘notes,’ when the notes never existed until needed,” Trump tweeted a day after the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report.
The scribe keeping track of the president’s actions was Annie Donaldson, McGahn’s chief of staff, a loyal and low-profile conservative lawyer who figures in the Mueller report as one of the most important narrators of internal White House turmoil.
Her daily habit of documenting conversations and meetings provided the special counsel’s office with its version of the Nixon White House tapes: a running account of the president’s actions, albeit in sentence fragments and concise descriptions.
Among the episodes memorialized in Donaldson’s notes and memos: the president’s outrage when FBI Director James B. Comey confirmed the existence of the investigation into possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, Trump’s efforts to pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from overseeing the probe and his push to get Mueller disqualified and removed as the special counsel.
The Harvard Law School graduate’s unflinching words — “Just in the middle of another Russia Fiasco,” she wrote on March 2, 2017 — have cast the die-hard Republican in an unfamiliar role: as a truth teller heralded by Trump’s foes for providing what they view as proof he is unfit for office.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has already signaled that he intends to subpoena Donaldson as a critical witness.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...e-donaldsons-notes/ar-AAAQHmd?ocid=spartandhp
Showdown looms between Congress and attorney general over Mueller report deadline
WASHINGTON
U.S. Attorney General William Barr is headed for a showdown on Monday with Democrats in Congress, as lawmakers prepared to begin contempt proceedings against the top U.S. law enforcement officer if he fails to hand over the full, unredacted Mueller report.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler gave Barr until 9 a.m. EDT to produce the full report and underlying evidence from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 22-month investigation into Russian election meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Nadler has subpoenaed the material but Barr missed an initial deadline to provide it last week.
Nadler's committee views the full Mueller report as vital to its own corruption and obstruction of justice investigation of President Donald Trump. The chairs of five other House committees investigating the president have also called for its release.
,,, article continues
Deadline looms on Mueller report as Trump changes position
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's turnabout on whether the special counsel should appear before Congress — "Bob Mueller should not testify," he tweeted — has sparked criticism from Democratic lawmakers eager to question the author of the report on Russia's election interference .
Trump had previously said he would leave the question of Robert Mueller testifying to Attorney General William Barr. The attorney general has said he has no objection to Mueller testifying.
Watergate had the Nixon tapes. Mueller had Annie Donaldson’s notes.
The notes, scribbled rapidly on a legal pad, captured the fear inside the White House when President Trump raged over the Russia investigation and decreed he was firing the FBI director who led it: “Is this the beginning of the end?”
The angst-filled entry is part of a shorthand diary that chronicled the chaotic days in Trump’s West Wing, a trove that the special counsel report cited more than 65 times as part of the evidence that the president sought to blunt a criminal investigation bearing down on him.
The public airing of the notes — which document then-White House counsel Donald McGahn’s contemporaneous account of events and his fear that the president was engaged in legally risky conduct — has infuriated Trump.
“Watch out for people that take so-called ‘notes,’ when the notes never existed until needed,” Trump tweeted a day after the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report.
The scribe keeping track of the president’s actions was Annie Donaldson, McGahn’s chief of staff, a loyal and low-profile conservative lawyer who figures in the Mueller report as one of the most important narrators of internal White House turmoil.
Her daily habit of documenting conversations and meetings provided the special counsel’s office with its version of the Nixon White House tapes: a running account of the president’s actions, albeit in sentence fragments and concise descriptions.
Among the episodes memorialized in Donaldson’s notes and memos: the president’s outrage when FBI Director James B. Comey confirmed the existence of the investigation into possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, Trump’s efforts to pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from overseeing the probe and his push to get Mueller disqualified and removed as the special counsel.
The Harvard Law School graduate’s unflinching words — “Just in the middle of another Russia Fiasco,” she wrote on March 2, 2017 — have cast the die-hard Republican in an unfamiliar role: as a truth teller heralded by Trump’s foes for providing what they view as proof he is unfit for office.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has already signaled that he intends to subpoena Donaldson as a critical witness.
Last edited:
Knox
Queen of the Cunts
It has never ONCE said you were in Australia. EVER. It ALWAYS says California. Just so you're aware. So there's that. And really? Australian politics are boring? Seriously?! Yeah you know nothing about it.
Opinions | Trump’s new effort to muzzle Mueller gives away his big scam
President Trump and his advisers want you to believe that the conclusion of the Mueller investigation amounts to much more than just “total exoneration.” It will also help Trump get reelected, because it validated his argument that the probe was an illegitimate effort to remove him, allowing him to go on offense against the “deep state” cabal behind it.
As one top Trump campaign official is now boasting, “the investigators will be investigated,” and “the tables are turning,” which is something “the campaign will continue to point to.” Trump’s effort to unleash law enforcement on his political foes doesn’t just represent a newly aggressive push into authoritarianism. As Trump’s campaign is openly and casually proclaiming, it’s also key to his 2020 strategy.
It’s strange, then, that Trump does not want special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to appear before Congress. After all, if he did, Trump’s Republican allies could subject him to their typically withering cross-examination skills, mercilessly unmasking the truth about the man at the center of this deep-state plot for all the nation to see.
Why on Earth would Trump willingly pass up such a fabulous opportunity?
Trump unleashed two tweets on Sunday, calling on Mueller not to honor the Democratic request for his testimony. Trump claimed Mueller had found “NO COLLUSION” (a serious distortion) and “NO OBSTRUCTION” (a flat-out lie) — and said: “No redos for the Dems!”
Meanwhile, we just learned that Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr, defied the deadline set by Democrats for releasing the full, unredacted Mueller report and underlying materials. Democrats are now preparing to hold Barr in contempt.
The idea that Trump is on offense against the investigators is encapsulated in the phrase “the tables are turning." This is a new Trumpworld talking point. Trump himself just used it, while claiming the only criminality involved in Russiagate was by Democrats.
Barr is apparently all in on this table-turning. Barr has said he’s investigating the “spying” on Trump’s campaign, subtly propping up the idea that the probe was grounded in nefarious deep-state intent. Last week, Barr cast doubt on the investigation’s genesis and lent support to the idea that Hillary Clinton was the real colluder.
As Brian Beutler and Jonathan Chait detail, Barr’s past (backing up the Iran-contra pardons) and his willingness to validate Trump’s narratives (he blessed the fake Uranium One scandal) raise reasonable suspicions that Barr will willingly carry out Trump’s authoritarian designs, whether for instrumental purposes or as a true believer.
You’d think Mueller’s congressional testimony would provide a great opening to build the case for doing so. Indeed, the New York Times reports that some around Trump want Mueller to testify for precisely this reason:
Opposition to Mueller testimony gives away the game.
"Ya think?"
… article continues
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...-away-his-big-scam/ar-AAAYByq?ocid=spartanntp
President Trump and his advisers want you to believe that the conclusion of the Mueller investigation amounts to much more than just “total exoneration.” It will also help Trump get reelected, because it validated his argument that the probe was an illegitimate effort to remove him, allowing him to go on offense against the “deep state” cabal behind it.
As one top Trump campaign official is now boasting, “the investigators will be investigated,” and “the tables are turning,” which is something “the campaign will continue to point to.” Trump’s effort to unleash law enforcement on his political foes doesn’t just represent a newly aggressive push into authoritarianism. As Trump’s campaign is openly and casually proclaiming, it’s also key to his 2020 strategy.
It’s strange, then, that Trump does not want special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to appear before Congress. After all, if he did, Trump’s Republican allies could subject him to their typically withering cross-examination skills, mercilessly unmasking the truth about the man at the center of this deep-state plot for all the nation to see.
Why on Earth would Trump willingly pass up such a fabulous opportunity?
Trump unleashed two tweets on Sunday, calling on Mueller not to honor the Democratic request for his testimony. Trump claimed Mueller had found “NO COLLUSION” (a serious distortion) and “NO OBSTRUCTION” (a flat-out lie) — and said: “No redos for the Dems!”
Meanwhile, we just learned that Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr, defied the deadline set by Democrats for releasing the full, unredacted Mueller report and underlying materials. Democrats are now preparing to hold Barr in contempt.
The idea that Trump is on offense against the investigators is encapsulated in the phrase “the tables are turning." This is a new Trumpworld talking point. Trump himself just used it, while claiming the only criminality involved in Russiagate was by Democrats.
Barr is apparently all in on this table-turning. Barr has said he’s investigating the “spying” on Trump’s campaign, subtly propping up the idea that the probe was grounded in nefarious deep-state intent. Last week, Barr cast doubt on the investigation’s genesis and lent support to the idea that Hillary Clinton was the real colluder.
As Brian Beutler and Jonathan Chait detail, Barr’s past (backing up the Iran-contra pardons) and his willingness to validate Trump’s narratives (he blessed the fake Uranium One scandal) raise reasonable suspicions that Barr will willingly carry out Trump’s authoritarian designs, whether for instrumental purposes or as a true believer.
You’d think Mueller’s congressional testimony would provide a great opening to build the case for doing so. Indeed, the New York Times reports that some around Trump want Mueller to testify for precisely this reason:
But the reality is that if and when Mueller does testify, it will all but certainly fortify the investigation’s legitimacy in the public mind, not undermine it. And it will likely deal another massive blow to Trumpworld’s alt-narrative.
Opposition to Mueller testimony gives away the game.
"Ya think?"
… article continues
Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert
More than 459 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.
The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.
Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.
“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”
The statement is notable for the number of people who signed it — 375 as of Monday afternoon — and the positions and political affiliations of some on the list. It was posted online Monday afternoon; those signing it did not explicitly address what, if anything, they hope might happen next.
Among the high-profile signers are Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is running against Trump as a Republican; Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush Administration; John S. Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge appointed to his posts by two Republican presidents; Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; and Jeffrey Harris, who worked as the principal assistant to Rudolph W. Giuliani when he was at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.
The list also includes more than 20 former U.S. attorneys and more than 100 people with at least 20 years of service at the Justice Department — most of them former career officials. The signers worked in every presidential administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The signatures were collected by the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, which counts Justice Department alumni among its staff and was contacted about the statement last week by a group of former federal prosecutors, said Justin Vail, an attorney at Protect Democracy.
“We strongly believe that Americans deserve to hear from the men and women who spent their careers weighing evidence and making decisions about whether it was sufficient to justify prosecution, so we agreed to send out a call for signatories,” Vail said. “The response was overwhelming. This effort reflects the voices of former prosecutors who have served at DOJ and signed the statement.”
Weld said by the time he reviewed the statement, it already had more than 100 signatures, and he affixed his name because he had concluded the evidence “goes well beyond what is required to support criminal charges of obstruction of justice.”
… article continues
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...prosecutors-assert/ar-AAAZ3J6?ocid=spartanntp
More than 459 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.
The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.
Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.
“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”
The statement is notable for the number of people who signed it — 375 as of Monday afternoon — and the positions and political affiliations of some on the list. It was posted online Monday afternoon; those signing it did not explicitly address what, if anything, they hope might happen next.
Among the high-profile signers are Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is running against Trump as a Republican; Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush Administration; John S. Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge appointed to his posts by two Republican presidents; Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; and Jeffrey Harris, who worked as the principal assistant to Rudolph W. Giuliani when he was at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.
The list also includes more than 20 former U.S. attorneys and more than 100 people with at least 20 years of service at the Justice Department — most of them former career officials. The signers worked in every presidential administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The signatures were collected by the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, which counts Justice Department alumni among its staff and was contacted about the statement last week by a group of former federal prosecutors, said Justin Vail, an attorney at Protect Democracy.
“We strongly believe that Americans deserve to hear from the men and women who spent their careers weighing evidence and making decisions about whether it was sufficient to justify prosecution, so we agreed to send out a call for signatories,” Vail said. “The response was overwhelming. This effort reflects the voices of former prosecutors who have served at DOJ and signed the statement.”
Weld said by the time he reviewed the statement, it already had more than 100 signatures, and he affixed his name because he had concluded the evidence “goes well beyond what is required to support criminal charges of obstruction of justice.”
… article continues
Last edited:
CentreAussie
Trusted Member
You're either lying, or there is something seriously wrong with your software. And Australian politics is boring, that's not only my opinion, it's an objective fact.
Mnuchin rejects Democrats’ demand to hand over Trump’s tax returns, all but ensuring legal battle
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Monday told House Democrats he would not furnish President Trump’s tax returns despite their legal request, the latest move by Trump administration officials to shield the president from congressional investigations.
Mnuchin, in a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), said he had consulted with the Justice Department and that they had concluded that it would not be lawful for the Trump administration to turn over the tax returns because of potential violations of privacy.
Mnuchin added that requests from Congress “must serve a legitimate legislative purpose” and that the request from Democrats does not.
A number of legal experts have said it would be unprecedented for Mnuchin to refuse to turn over the tax returns, as the power for lawmakers to seek the returns is written explicitly in a 1924 law.
But Mnuchin, Trump’s former campaign finance chairman, has fought to protect the returns from public disclosure and said it would create a dangerous precedent if the returns are released. Mnuchin’s announcement on Monday appears to be his final decision in the matter, though he has hinted for weeks that he would not allow the release.
Neal said in a statement on Monday evening, “I will consult with counsel and determine the appropriate response.
… article continues
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...uring-legal-battle/ar-AAAZg32?ocid=spartanntp
I think someone previously referenced the below but it is in the body of this article as well.
The chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have had the authority since 1924 to obtain the tax returns of any American, and the law stipulates that the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” the information once it is requested. This law was put in place during the Harding administration because of financial improprieties that stemmed from the Teapot Dome scandal.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Monday told House Democrats he would not furnish President Trump’s tax returns despite their legal request, the latest move by Trump administration officials to shield the president from congressional investigations.
Mnuchin, in a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), said he had consulted with the Justice Department and that they had concluded that it would not be lawful for the Trump administration to turn over the tax returns because of potential violations of privacy.
Mnuchin added that requests from Congress “must serve a legitimate legislative purpose” and that the request from Democrats does not.
A number of legal experts have said it would be unprecedented for Mnuchin to refuse to turn over the tax returns, as the power for lawmakers to seek the returns is written explicitly in a 1924 law.
But Mnuchin, Trump’s former campaign finance chairman, has fought to protect the returns from public disclosure and said it would create a dangerous precedent if the returns are released. Mnuchin’s announcement on Monday appears to be his final decision in the matter, though he has hinted for weeks that he would not allow the release.
Neal said in a statement on Monday evening, “I will consult with counsel and determine the appropriate response.
… article continues
I think someone previously referenced the below but it is in the body of this article as well.
The chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have had the authority since 1924 to obtain the tax returns of any American, and the law stipulates that the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” the information once it is requested. This law was put in place during the Harding administration because of financial improprieties that stemmed from the Teapot Dome scandal.
FBI chief: No evidence agency spied on Trump 2016 campaign
WASHINGTON — FBI Director Chris Wray said Tuesday that he does not consider court-approved FBI surveillance to be "spying" and said he has no evidence the FBI illegally monitored President Donald Trump's campaign during the 2016 election.
His comments at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing broke from Attorney General William Barr, who said last month that he believed the Trump campaign had been spied on during an investigation into potential collusion with Russia. Trump seized on that comment as part of his allegation that the investigation was tainted by law enforcement bias.
Asked by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, if he would say the FBI is "spying" when it investigates suspected terrorists and mobsters, Wray replied, "Well, that's not the term I would use."
He added: "I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity, and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes. And to me, the key question is making sure that's done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities. That's the key question. Different people use different colloquial phrases."
Wray declined to discuss in detail the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign because of an ongoing Justice Department inspector general investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. Barr has said he expects the watchdog report to be done in May or June.
,,, article continues
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rump-2016-campaign/ar-AAB1Tyu?ocid=spartanntp
WASHINGTON — FBI Director Chris Wray said Tuesday that he does not consider court-approved FBI surveillance to be "spying" and said he has no evidence the FBI illegally monitored President Donald Trump's campaign during the 2016 election.
His comments at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing broke from Attorney General William Barr, who said last month that he believed the Trump campaign had been spied on during an investigation into potential collusion with Russia. Trump seized on that comment as part of his allegation that the investigation was tainted by law enforcement bias.
Asked by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, if he would say the FBI is "spying" when it investigates suspected terrorists and mobsters, Wray replied, "Well, that's not the term I would use."
He added: "I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity, and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes. And to me, the key question is making sure that's done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities. That's the key question. Different people use different colloquial phrases."
Wray declined to discuss in detail the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign because of an ongoing Justice Department inspector general investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. Barr has said he expects the watchdog report to be done in May or June.
,,, article continues
Knox
Queen of the Cunts
First off, I NEVER lie. Any of the three other mods can tell you the same thing. And there is nothing wrong with the sites software. However, you are seriously pushing your luck when you decide to call a mod a liar. I'd reign in your worst impulses if I were you.
Remember Lith was Canadian until finally proven otherwise.
myra manes
Veteran Member
Wait, what?
That freak lithium girl wasn't Canadian?
Thank Dog!!!
I was so shamed to be from the same country as her ..
Knox
Queen of the Cunts
@myra manes @Victoria
She most definitely was not. I always knew she was waaaaaaaaay too interested in American politics for her to be anything but American. As for being from a different world? Now that's very possible.
She most definitely was not. I always knew she was waaaaaaaaay too interested in American politics for her to be anything but American. As for being from a different world? Now that's very possible.
myra manes
Veteran Member
Yeah, she went completely off the rails during her last couple of days in the trump thread ..@myra manes @Victoria
She most definitely was not. I always knew she was waaaaaaaaay too interested in American politics for her to be anything but American. As for being from a different world? Now that's very possible.
I'm thankful, as a Canadian, I can breathe again ..
Now she's a problem of the American citizens .. :hilarious:
Knox
Queen of the Cunts
Yeah, she went completely off the rails during her last couple of days in the trump thread ..
I'm thankful, as a Canadian, I can breathe again ..
Now she's a problem of the American citizens .. :hilarious:
But thankfully not our problem here!!!
myra manes
Veteran Member
Don't kid yourself, she'll be back ..
everjaded
ಠ_ಠ
So umm... could someone kindly point me to where it's stated that the DD expressly prohibits the calling of a mod a liar?
Maybe I'm just not looking in the right place, but I really am not seeing anything in "The Definitive Forum Rules" that would apply.
I'm not saying I have any desire to, or for others to, but c'mon y'all, that's fucking silly.
Maybe I'm just not looking in the right place, but I really am not seeing anything in "The Definitive Forum Rules" that would apply.
I'm not saying I have any desire to, or for others to, but c'mon y'all, that's fucking silly.
CentreAussie
Trusted Member
Well, something is up, just for shits and giggles I just searched my IP and yep is says I'm in Australia. Because last time I checked I was in Australia. I really don't think it matters that much, I just find this whole situation to be bizarre. Seriously, why would I invent my nationality? There are a lot of people here who follow American politics for same reasons I do. I didn't actually call you a liar because I don't think that you are. That was really more of an implication that you were doing something wrong in your quest to uncover the "truth" about me.
[automerge]1557293292[/automerge]
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...ating-Woman-Abortion-Protester-509597941.html
Yet no mention of the three teenage girls he was also harassing, or the fact he offered money for their dox.
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest posts
-
30 dogs, cats found dead in animal rescue CEO's home- Latest: Sugar Cookie
