Never heard of this poor guy before this hoax (assuming that's what it was), feel bad for the guy, probably a desperate cry for attention and sympathy.

ONCE AGAIN, the media and the far left (sorry for the redundancy there) saw an opportunity to smear the right, and jumped the gun before anything like due process took place.

HOW MANY TIMES do these morons have to end up with egg on their faces, before they just wait for investigations to take place? Duke lacrosse, hands up don't shoot, the Rolling Stone U-VA rape case, the Covington kids, now this.

This is a great opportunity for us to collectively take a deep breath, and start over. But it won't happen, Trump Derangement Syndrome is way too powerful.

Hope this guy doesn't commit suicide. Pathetic.

All the coverage I saw of the incident was reported with a healthy bit of skepticism from the beginning. Seems like a poorly planned publicity stunt. You didn't know who the guy was and now you do. If it was a hoax he'll likely be a felon soon.

All the coverage I saw of the incident was reported with a healthy bit of skepticism from the beginning. Seems like a poorly planned publicity stunt. You didn't know who the guy was and now you do. If it was a hoax he'll likely be a felon soon.

Kamela Harris and Corey Booker said it was a modern day lynching. Nancy Pelosi and Alexandra Cortez said it was a "racist, homophopbic" attack.

If that represents a "healthy bit of skepticism" to you, boy I hope I don't live long enough to see you feel that anyone actually rushed to judgment.

I don't doubt that he'll get what's coming to him (though he may enjoy prison). What about the 4 politicians I mentioned? Will they go on the air and apologize for fanning the flames of racial tensions?

Kamela Harris and Corey Booker said it was a modern day lynching. Nancy Pelosi and Alexandra Cortez said it was a "racist, homophopbic" attack.

If that represents a "healthy bit of skepticism" to you, boy I hope I don't live long enough to see you feel that anyone actually rushed to judgment.

I don't doubt that he'll get what's coming to him (though he may enjoy prison). What about the 4 politicians I mentioned? Will they go on the air and apologize for fanning the flames of racial tensions?

If an attack like that happened what should people say about it?
Should the first reaction be maybe it didn't happen?
Why do they have to apologize for an honest statement about what they believe happened?

Maybe the guy who is so blind to white privilege and sees black and Latino unemployment went down as something special, "even though they are black I got them jobs, look at me, I'm special" should apologize.

If an attack like that happened what should people say about it?
Should the first reaction be maybe it didn't happen?
Why do they have to apologize for an honest statement about what they believe happened?

Maybe the guy who is so blind to white privilege and sees black and Latino unemployment went down as something special, "even though they are black I got them jobs, look at me, I'm special" should apologize.

what people should say, is that because of tds. due process comes first. when the covington kids claimed they suffered racist attacks, they were still blamed. all about the narrative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If an attack like that happened what should people say about it?
Should the first reaction be maybe it didn't happen?
Why do they have to apologize for an honest statement about what they believe happened?

There is this very critical word that the Press and Politicians must use in these cases: ALLEGED. To proclaim something as racially and incitement-to-violence loaded as this is as fact is the proverbial height of irresponsibility. You, the leftist media, Never Trumpers and Trump haters, excoriate Trump for saying things that you INTERPRET as racist, even if they actually aren't, and claim that they are words that offend and promote far right violence.

But here, for you, these are merely honest statements of belief. Ku Klux Klansmen and Nazis make honest statements of belief that those who made these unsubstantiated statements would brand as criminal, prejudiced, hate speech, and cause for imprisonment.

Maybe the guy who is so blind to white privilege and sees black and Latino unemployment went down as something special, "even though they are black I got them jobs, look at me, I'm special" should apologize.

Maybe all those who are blind to their own hypocrisy should apologize. But they won't. And what is this grand privilege that assumes those who supposedly have it are automatically, ipso facto, assumed guilty before proven innocent? And not apologized to when they are found innocent?

What Kamela Harris said when the actor made his claim...

"This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate."

What she said after the story fell apart...

"I’m not going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation."

So, when the allegation is sympathetic to The Narrative, we can jump all over it and assume it's true. But when the allegation is contrary to The Narrative, we need to wait until all the facts are in.

To repeat, when the allegation smears conservatives, shoot first and don't even bother asking questions. When the allegation targets a liberal cause, refrain from comment.

That's leadership, boy. Not a syllable about the damage that might have been done by her jumping the gun. This is a corrupt skank who slept her way to the top.

Maybe the guy who is so blind to white privilege and sees black and Latino unemployment went down as something special, "even though they are black I got them jobs, look at me, I'm special" should apologize.

"Maybe the guy who is so blind to white privilege"

If white privilege was all that it's cracked up to be, why is honkey Liz Warren desperately trying to be Native American, and why is honkey Robert Francis (Beto) O'Roarke desperately trying to be Hispanic?


"sees black and Latino unemployment went down as something special"

I view lowest black unemployment ever recorded, as a good thing. You view it as nothing worth mentioning. You can't bring yourself to concede that it's a great thing, your deranged hatred won't allow you to celebrate something so great. I'm quite comfortable stating that my position is a whole lot less cuckoo than yours.

Take off the tin foil hat for two seconds.

what people should say, is that because of tds. due process comes first. when the covington kids claimed they suffered racist attacks, they were still blamed. all about the narrative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Might be applicable if any person was accused, was there any perpetrator identified, are you just claiming victim status again or what?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Maybe the guy who is so blind to white privilege"

If white privilege was all that it's cracked up to be, why is honkey Liz Warren desperately trying to be Native American, and why is honkey Robert Francis (Beto) O'Roarke desperately trying to be Hispanic?


"sees black and Latino unemployment went down as something special"

I view lowest black unemployment ever recorded, as a good thing. You view it as nothing worth mentioning. You can't bring yourself to concede that it's a great thing, your deranged hatred won't allow you to celebrate something so great. I'm quite comfortable stating that my position is a whole lot less cuckoo than yours.

Take off the tin foil hat for two seconds.
It’s only right wing media obsessed with people’s racial heritage and supposed issues, day after day but with an inept and failing leader what would anyone expect?
Are you arguing for or against identity politics when you claim special status for black unemployment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a corrupt skank who slept her way to the top.

That statement says far more about the person who made it than anyone else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s only right wing media obsessed with people’s racial heritage and supposed issues, day after day but with an inept and failing leader what would anyone expect?

This is your drunken intellectual mode. Only right wing media is obsessed with racial heritage day after day? As for the "inept and failing" crap, it comes off as inebriated verbal slobber.

Are you arguing for or against identity politics when you claim special status for black unemployment?


Are you employing identity politics when you infer or accuse someone of having white privilege?

This is your drunken intellectual mode. Only right wing media is obsessed with racial heritage day after day? As for the "inept and failing" crap, it comes off as inebriated verbal slobber.
Are you employing identity politics when you infer or accuse someone of having white privilege?

When you can’t retort, resort to insults
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you can’t retort, resort to insults
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did retort. First I described your senseless verbal slobber. Then I asked "Are you employing identity politics when you infer or accuse someone of having white privilege?"

You didn't retort back. You deflected.

That statement says far more about the person who made it than anyone else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

corrupt: took big $$ from labor unions while giving them favorable rulings, has a history of giving favorable rulings to cronies

slept her way to the top: had a long-time affair with the married mayor of San Francisco, who kept moving her into higher and higher positions.

But her past says more about me, than it does about her. Got it.

It’s only right wing media obsessed with people’s racial heritage

Oh man that's rich. So why are Liz Warren and Beto O'Roarke desperately trying to not be seen as white? Are they part of the "right wing media"?

I did retort. First I described your senseless verbal slobber. Then I asked "Are you employing identity politics when you infer or accuse someone of having white privilege?"

You didn't retort back. You deflected.

You think Trump can do no wrong and are a constant defender, sad. And if anyone hits at Don the Con you attack. Michael Cohen figured it out, just took him a long time. You will also, sooner or later.

But yours was a deflection from my question "Are you arguing for or against identity politics when you claim special status for black unemployment?"

All the coverage I saw of the incident was reported with a healthy bit of skepticism from the beginning. Seems like a poorly planned publicity stunt. You didn't know who the guy was and now you do. If it was a hoax he'll likely be a felon soon.

I don't know what coverage you saw, everything I saw was the guy was a victim of a hate crime. No "let's see what facts develop".

Kamela Harris and Corey Booker said it was a modern day lynching. Nancy Pelosi and Alexandra Cortez said it was a "racist, homophopbic" attack.

If that represents a "healthy bit of skepticism" to you, boy I hope I don't live long enough to see you feel that anyone actually rushed to judgment.

I don't doubt that he'll get what's coming to him (though he may enjoy prison). What about the 4 politicians I mentioned? Will they go on the air and apologize for fanning the flames of racial tensions?


^^ He is correct


If an attack like that happened what should people say about it?
Should the first reaction be maybe it didn't happen?
Why do they have to apologize for an honest statement about what they believe happened?

Maybe the guy who is so blind to white privilege and sees black and Latino unemployment went down as something special, "even though they are black I got them jobs, look at me, I'm special" should apologize.

The First reaction should be "Such and such claims to be a victim of an attack of..." First reports of often enough wrong that we will wait for more information"

corrupt: took big $$ from labor unions while giving them favorable rulings, has a history of giving favorable rulings to cronies
Not quite as bad as your hero
https://www.newsweek.com/2019/01/18/donald-trump-mafia-connections-decades-later-linked-mob-1285771.html

slept her way to the top: had a long-time affair with the married mayor of San Francisco, who kept moving her into higher and higher positions.

Any high achieving woman is accused of sleeping her way to the top.
You don't find high moral character important in Republicans though.

But her past says more about me, than it does about her. Got it.
Character is destiny

Character is destiny

not all high achieving women are accused of sleeping their way to the top ( no one accused hilary of that, god knows), but harris is. willie brown admits it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not all high achieving women are accused of sleeping their way to the top ( no one accused hilary of that, god knows), but harris is. willie brown admits it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just more fake news you find on Faux

Kamala Harris and Willie Brown had a relationship in the mid 1990s. At the time, Harris was working as an attorney in various city offices.

Brown, who is nearly 30 years older than Harris, had been elected mayor after serving in the state legislature for more than 30 years.
Willie Brown has led an eccentric, outspoken life, and his exploits with women have been well-documented. In 2001, news broke that Brown had impregnated his top fundraiser, for example. However, the claim that Kamala Harris had "an affair" with Brown, implying not only that they had a relationship but that it was furtive and seedy, doesn't check out.

It's true that Brown has technically been married since 1958. However, Brown and his wife separated amicably in 1982 — more than 10 years before his relationship with Harris began — according to a 1984 New York Times profile of Brown.

So again, claims that Kamala Harris had an affair with a married man just don't check out.

Did Kamala Harris use her relationship with Brown to launch her political career?

Kamala Harris and Willie Brown made no effort to hide their relationship in the early 1990s. When Harris first ran for public office in 2003, long after the relationship ended, her previous relationship with Brown didn't help her chances — it actually hurt them.

Harris' opponents, incumbent District Attorney Terence Hallinan and local attorney Bill Fazio, turned her previous relationship with Brown into a campaign issue, arguing that Harris could not be trusted to hold Brown accountable as DA because they had been previously involved:

Hallinan and Fazio aren't attacking Harris' platform (which they both profess to generally share) or professionalism (each admits that Harris is a competent prosecutor). Rather, they are knifing her with innuendo, saying her ties to the outgoing mayor would cause her, as district attorney, to look the other way should her former beau or his political minions ever be credibly accused of committing crimes in office.
The charge that she is Brown's puppet — that she's guilty by association with a mayor who has not been found guilty of anything — infuriates Harris. Though in third place in recent polls, she's a political comer. She's whip-smart, hard-working, and well-credentialed to be San Francisco's top criminal prosecutor. She's hauling in campaign cash like there's no tomorrow. And topping it all off, she's a beautiful blend of East Indian mother and African-American father who may draw votes particularly well among women and minorities. If she manages to come in ahead of Fazio in the Nov. 4 election, and if Hallinan fails to win more than 50 percent of that vote, she'll face the district attorney in a December runoff. In a high-profile sprint against an aging incumbent, Harris — with her brains, connections, and buppie glamour — might just emerge victorious.

If she can just get out from under this damn Willie Brown thing.

Willie Brown was a lame-duck mayor at that point. Kamala Harris said it didn't make sense for her to criticize the outgoing mayor just to appear independent. She added:

I refuse... to design my campaign around criticizing Willie Brown for the sake of appearing to be independent when I have no doubt that I am independent of him — and that he would probably right now express some fright about the fact that he cannot control me.

His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing.

In any event, the smear tactics did not work. Harris won the 2003 election. But smears that she had had an affair with a married man and used it to launch her political career (implying heavily that she could not have done it on her own) followed Harris to the national stage.


And i guess you missed Pizzagate, usually you're right there spreading that kind of fake news.

Just more fake news you find on Faux

Kamala Harris and Willie Brown had a relationship in the mid 1990s. At the time, Harris was working as an attorney in various city offices.

Brown, who is nearly 30 years older than Harris, had been elected mayor after serving in the state legislature for more than 30 years.
Willie Brown has led an eccentric, outspoken life, and his exploits with women have been well-documented. In 2001, news broke that Brown had impregnated his top fundraiser, for example. However, the claim that Kamala Harris had "an affair" with Brown, implying not only that they had a relationship but that it was furtive and seedy, doesn't check out.

It's true that Brown has technically been married since 1958. However, Brown and his wife separated amicably in 1982 — more than 10 years before his relationship with Harris began — according to a 1984 New York Times profile of Brown.

So again, claims that Kamala Harris had an affair with a married man just don't check out.

Did Kamala Harris use her relationship with Brown to launch her political career?

Kamala Harris and Willie Brown made no effort to hide their relationship in the early 1990s. When Harris first ran for public office in 2003, long after the relationship ended, her previous relationship with Brown didn't help her chances — it actually hurt them.

Harris' opponents, incumbent District Attorney Terence Hallinan and local attorney Bill Fazio, turned her previous relationship with Brown into a campaign issue, arguing that Harris could not be trusted to hold Brown accountable as DA because they had been previously involved:

Hallinan and Fazio aren't attacking Harris' platform (which they both profess to generally share) or professionalism (each admits that Harris is a competent prosecutor). Rather, they are knifing her with innuendo, saying her ties to the outgoing mayor would cause her, as district attorney, to look the other way should her former beau or his political minions ever be credibly accused of committing crimes in office.
The charge that she is Brown's puppet — that she's guilty by association with a mayor who has not been found guilty of anything — infuriates Harris. Though in third place in recent polls, she's a political comer. She's whip-smart, hard-working, and well-credentialed to be San Francisco's top criminal prosecutor. She's hauling in campaign cash like there's no tomorrow. And topping it all off, she's a beautiful blend of East Indian mother and African-American father who may draw votes particularly well among women and minorities. If she manages to come in ahead of Fazio in the Nov. 4 election, and if Hallinan fails to win more than 50 percent of that vote, she'll face the district attorney in a December runoff. In a high-profile sprint against an aging incumbent, Harris — with her brains, connections, and buppie glamour — might just emerge victorious.

If she can just get out from under this damn Willie Brown thing.

Willie Brown was a lame-duck mayor at that point. Kamala Harris said it didn't make sense for her to criticize the outgoing mayor just to appear independent. She added:

I refuse... to design my campaign around criticizing Willie Brown for the sake of appearing to be independent when I have no doubt that I am independent of him — and that he would probably right now express some fright about the fact that he cannot control me.

His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing.

In any event, the smear tactics did not work. Harris won the 2003 election. But smears that she had had an affair with a married man and used it to launch her political career (implying heavily that she could not have done it on her own) followed Harris to the national stage.


And i guess you missed Pizzagate, usually you're right there spreading that kind of fake news.

brown says they were sleeping together when he was promoting her to higher and higher positions. but you know better than he does. you are amazingly well informed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, from usatoday, which ain’t foxnews. while she was dating brown, he appointed her to jobs paying over $400k.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/27/willie-brown-kamala-harris-san-francisco-chronicle-letter/2695143002/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ha
That’s funny
A new hero for the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, from usatoday, which ain’t foxnews. while she was dating brown, he appointed her to jobs paying over $400k.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/27/willie-brown-kamala-harris-san-francisco-chronicle-letter/2695143002/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe you should read what you link
"I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians," he added.

"The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A.," Brown wrote. "That’s politics for ya."

You think Trump can do no wrong

This is an absurd, ignorant, display of intellectual inebriation. Drunkeness leads to false and silly absolutes.

and are a constant defender, sad.

Apparently, you have a problem when someone you constantly attack is defended against false accusations. I understand how that can be sad for you when the beast that occupies your besotted brain is defended.

And if anyone hits at Don the Con you attack.

If you could dry out from your phrenic intoxication of hateful obsession with Trump, you would notice that there are many occasions that I don't respond to hits at the Don. Some are funny, most are too obviously stupid to care about, and some are true.

Michael Cohen figured it out, just took him a long time. You will also, sooner or later.

I'm sure that if Mueller was threatening me with certain life imprisonment I'd strongly consider copping a plea.

But yours was a deflection from my question "Are you arguing for or against identity politics when you claim special status for black unemployment?"

You didn't ask me that question. You asked Jim.

That’s what I am talking about PeteF. Put her on the ticket.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You didn't ask me that question. You asked Jim.

I didn’t ask you any question but you felt compelled to answer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, from usatoday, which ain’t foxnews. while she was dating brown, he appointed her to jobs paying over $400k.
Why does any of this matter? Is there any evidence she was appointed to jobs over more qualified people? Her relationship wasn't hidden, you'd think people would be up in arms if there was an issue. 400k over 5 years isn't a lot of money in CA even back then. She seems to have built a very solid resume, she doesn't get to take any credit for her hard work?

I didn’t ask you any question but you felt compelled to answer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was a comment, not answer. I do make comments. As do you. Is that OK?

If white privilege was all that it's cracked up to be, why is honkey Liz Warren desperately trying to be Native American, and why is honkey Robert Francis (Beto) O'Roarke desperately trying to be Hispanic?

I don't understand this rant. Who's desperate to be what again?

This is a corrupt skank who slept her way to the top.
You might need to retake your sexism training again.

Why does any of this matter? Is there any evidence she was appointed to jobs over more qualified people? Her relationship wasn't hidden, you'd think people would be up in arms if there was an issue. 400k over 5 years isn't a lot of money in CA even back then. She seems to have built a very solid resume, she doesn't get to take any credit for her hard work?

some people are offended by crony-ism, more so when the bedroom is involved.

"Her relationship wasn't hidden"

Pete posted an article denying there was an affair.

It's gross. Trump has done many things at least as gross, but it's gross.

I don't understand this rant. Who's desperate to be what again?

Warren desperate to be native American. O'Rourke desperate to be Hispanic. Is that news to you?

some people are offended by crony-ism, more so when the bedroom is involved.

"Her relationship wasn't hidden"

Pete posted an article denying there was an affair.

It's gross. Trump has done many things at least as gross, but it's gross.

What article was that?

You have a real reading comprehension problem.

Here is the first sentence of what I posted
"Kamala Harris and Willie Brown had a relationship in the mid 1990s."

You sound like you got passed over for a promotion by a woman and now you are a poster boy for Misogynist Magazine.

Look at the list of people you have hated and attacked

Clinton
Lynch
Pelosi
Feinstein
Warren
AOC
Harris

Pete posted an article denying there was an affair.

It's gross. Trump has done many things at least as gross, but it's gross.
Sounds like Brown just had an open relationship.

Warren desperate to be native American. O'Rourke desperate to be Hispanic. Is that news to you?
Checking a few check boxes and submitting a recipe years ago doesn't really strike me as a desperate act. As for Beto, his name is Robert, his family called him Beto as a nickname. He grew up in a city with a Latino majority. Don't know how this makes him desperate either.

Sounds like Brown just had a quid pro quo relationship.

fixed it :wave:

were these government jobs she was getting?...isn't that essentially using tax payer money to pay for your sex? which is probably fine if you are a democrat.......

Warren desperate to be native American. O'Rourke desperate to be Hispanic. Is that news to you?

Luckily they are not Republicans, either would have a hard time passing as a grumpy old white man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Luckily they are not Republicans, either would have a hard time passing as a grumpy old white man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that doesn't make any sense...was that an attempt at humor?

I see you’re sitting in the low chair again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Checking a few check boxes and submitting a recipe years ago doesn't really strike me as a desperate act. As for Beto, his name is Robert, his family called him Beto as a nickname. He grew up in a city with a Latino majority. Don't know how this makes him desperate either.

"Checking a few check boxes and submitting a recipe years ago doesn't really strike me as a desperate act."

You left out all the times when she said " I am a native American, my maw maw said so, look at my cheekbones".

"his family called him Beto as a nickname"

You know this? Or he says so?

White privilege, mmm-hmm.

What article was that?

You have a real reading comprehension problem.

Here is the first sentence of what I posted
"Kamala Harris and Willie Brown had a relationship in the mid 1990s."

You sound like you got passed over for a promotion by a woman and now you are a poster boy for Misogynist Magazine.

Look at the list of people you have hated and attacked

Clinton
Lynch
Pelosi
Feinstein
Warren
AOC
Harris

The link you posted, said it wasn't an affair.

Add Trump to that list. But I attack him when it's accurate to do so.

And I love Cortez, I absolutely love her, hope she rises through the ranks for decades.

Pete, your article said this..."However, the claim that Kamala Harris had "an affair" with Brown, implying not only that they had a relationship but that it was furtive and seedy, doesn't check out."

How the hell could the author know it wasn't seedy, was he in the bedroom with them?

fixed it :wave:

were these government jobs she was getting?...isn't that essentially using tax payer money to pay for your sex? which is probably fine if you are a democrat.......

Yes, government jobs, paying $400,000 a year.

#heelsup

Yes, government jobs, paying $400,000 a year.

#heelsup
Can you read? Seriously, this is explaining a lot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you read? Seriously, this is explaining a lot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, I read that her lover, who was married, appointed her to public sector jobs with enormous salaries.

How many men has she slept with, who are (1) 30 years older, and (2) NOT in a position to help her career?

If you believe she didn't do it for the career boost,, can we assume you also believe that Melania didn't marry Donald for his money? Or do only liberals get the benefit of the doubt from you?

Pete, your article said this..."However, the claim that Kamala Harris had "an affair" with Brown, implying not only that they had a relationship but that it was furtive and seedy, doesn't check out."

How the hell could the author know it wasn't seedy, was he in the bedroom with them?

He had been separated for years.
I think David Pecker is looking fo reporters, you’d fit right in, Character is Destiny
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He had been separated for years.
I think David Pecker is looking fo reporters, you’d fit right in, Character is Destiny
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he gave plum, lucrative positions to his lover.

after she had
no more use for grandpa, she said he was “an albatross around my neck.”. yes, it’s the classic
american love story. move over, romeo and juliet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what would Smollett have done, if two white people were arrested for the crime he likely fabricated?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, he's officially been named a suspect by the police for perpetrating a hoax. Dumbass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

POS race baiter.....

So will just wait and see if and how the aforementioned comments are addressed in the coming days....

Checking a few check boxes and submitting a recipe years ago doesn't really strike me as a desperate act.

A recipe??????

So Jeff, what would it strike you as? Give me five... adjectives, nouns, or adverbs, that you would use to teach your kids right from wrong in the same scenario?

Well, he's officially been named a suspect by the police for perpetrating a hoax. Dumbass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

.......and he's been charged.

PoS
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that will be a felony charge......

I'm waiting patiently to hear the responses from Harris, Warren, and Spartacus about this, they went "All In" early :hihi:

No cure for stupid, comes in all colors too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No cure for stupid, comes in all colors too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No there isn't, and yes it does

I'm waiting patiently to hear the responses from Harris, Warren, and Spartacus about this, they went "All In" early :hihi:


maxine waters, who isn’t as important as those folks, went further, laying the blame directly on Trump.

for social
justice warriors of the left, acquiring victim status for yourself is a badge of honor. anything to be seen as a victim of trumplicans. this guy really rubbed salt into the perpetually open racial wounds of our
culture, and he diverted police resources away from solving the dozen homicides which happen in chicago every weekend, but which get no media attention because liberals cant use those 500 murders a year, as a club against trump. so they don’t care.

and the liberals will learn nothing, as they learned nothing from the duke lacrosse case. when the circumstances of
an attack line up to fit the preferred liberal narrative, we don’t need an investigation, a rush to judgment is acceptable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't Fox and Brietbart just accuse AOC of hiring her boyfriend when a simple call to her office would have cleared things up?

So your suggestion seems to be to wait until everything is finalized and some authourity says that it is ok to report the news.

Didn't Fox and Brietbart just accuse AOC of hiring her boyfriend when a simple call to her office would have cleared things up?

So your suggestion seems to be to wait until everything is finalized and some authourity says that it is ok to report the news.

here’s the difference between me and you. if fox did that, they should be ashamed, because politically motivated smear does nothing except undermine your credibility. plus i’m her case, there’s more than enough genuine stupidity to keep reporters busy, no need to fabricate or exaggerate.

who is going after the liberal politicians for jumping the gun?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, the difference between you and me is that I don't comment on something that fox news does wrong. I realize mistake are made - especially with the 24 hr min. by min news cycle so I'm not petty enough to comment on everything I see wrong with fox and then start ranting about the right this, the right that. etc etc etc. blah blah blah cry cry cry.

here’s the difference between me and you. if fox did that, they should be ashamed, because politically motivated smear does nothing except undermine your credibility. plus i’m her case, there’s more than enough genuine stupidity to keep reporters busy, no need to fabricate or exaggerate.

who is going after the liberal politicians for jumping the gun?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If the incident actually happened would you condemn it or wait until when?
If an illegal immigrant did something would you wait till after the conviction to decry it or do it at first report? Better look at past posts before you answer
Meanwhile your hero, who you don’t really like, called for the execution of 5 teenage boys for years and continued after they were exonerated, no issue there
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjjt7iT-szgAhWQT98KHW3hC34QzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheweek.com%2Farticles%2F653840% 2Fdonald-trumps-30year-crusade-against-central-park-five&psig=AOvVaw0JosjQXLySSqK0clazl-nq&ust=1550842901933961
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PeteF. ,even after you have seen Jim criticize the man when called for,you still refer to him as his hero. Are you stupid or trying to antagonize? Take your pick.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, the difference between you and me is that I don't comment on something that fox news does wrong. I realize mistake are made - especially with the 24 hr min. by min news cycle so I'm not petty enough to comment on everything I see wrong with fox and then start ranting about the right this, the right that. etc etc etc. blah blah blah cry cry cry.



"Didn't Fox and Brietbart just accuse AOC of hiring her boyfriend when a simple call to her office would have cleared things up?"..

Smollet looked to take advantage of the growing wedge that people willingly drive further and further in this country. What ever his motive (career, hatred for Trump, SJW cred) he further divided people based on his actions. Strong penalty.

People were too willing to make SJ points on this, particularly the political left that are eating each other to be king of the hill.


This has happened time and time again, people with axes or careers to grind having to be early and memorable.

And time and time again the News Media has to be intertwined with the virtue signaling Kommentariat on Social Media.

We are in a post "Just the Facts, Mam" world.

i hope this guy has good people around him so he doesn’t hurt himself or worse. this is a bizarre situation, hope he’s ok and maybe, just maybe, we can all learn from this. not everyone who chose not to vote for hilary, is a disgusting hate monger. there are some really, really decent people who voted for trump, justbasnthere are some really, really great people who voted for hilary. neither side has a monopoly on virtue or evil.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the incident actually happened would you condemn it or wait until when?
If an illegal immigrant did something would you wait till after the conviction to decry it or do it at first report? Better look at past posts before you answer
Meanwhile your hero, who you don’t really like, called for the execution of 5 teenage boys for years and continued after they were exonerated, no issue there
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjjt7iT-szgAhWQT98KHW3hC34QzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheweek.com%2Farticles%2F653840% 2Fdonald-trumps-30year-crusade-against-central-park-five&psig=AOvVaw0JosjQXLySSqK0clazl-nq&ust=1550842901933961
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if the incident actually happened, what have i ever said that would
make you question that i would
condemn it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the incident actually happened would you condemn it or wait until when?
If an illegal immigrant did something would you wait till after the conviction to decry it or do it at first report? Better look at past posts before you answer
Meanwhile your hero, who you don’t really like, called for the execution of 5 teenage boys for years and continued after they were exonerated, no issue there
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjjt7iT-szgAhWQT98KHW3hC34QzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheweek.com%2Farticles%2F653840% 2Fdonald-trumps-30year-crusade-against-central-park-five&psig=AOvVaw0JosjQXLySSqK0clazl-nq&ust=1550842901933961
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do conservatives have a demonstrable history of faking crimes and blaming them on illegal
aliens, in order to make their point?

regardless, i have absolutely rushed to judgment and i shouldn’t. but it’s far worse when the media, hollywood, or politicians do it, as they have influence. i can’t even influence
my wife.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the incident actually happened would you condemn it or wait until when?
If an illegal immigrant did something would you wait till after the conviction to decry it or do it at first report? Better look at past posts before you answer
Meanwhile your hero, who you don’t really like, called for the execution of 5 teenage boys for years and continued after they were exonerated, no issue there
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjjt7iT-szgAhWQT98KHW3hC34QzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheweek.com%2Farticles%2F653840% 2Fdonald-trumps-30year-crusade-against-central-park-five&psig=AOvVaw0JosjQXLySSqK0clazl-nq&ust=1550842901933961
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


"I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering" as the World Trade Center collapsed.

— Donald Trump on Saturday, November 21st, 2015 in comments during a speech

Arguing that there are terrorist sympathizers in the United States, Donald Trump says he saw "thousands" of New Jerseyans celebrating after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down," the Republican presidential candidate said at a Nov. 21 rally in Birmingham, Ala. "And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering."

The next day, ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump if he misspoke, noting that "the police say that didn't happen."

Trump -- who has said he was in his Manhattan apartment the morning of the attack -- doubled down.

"It was on television. I saw it," Trump said. "It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don't like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good."

do conservatives have a demonstrable history of faking crimes and blaming them on illegal
aliens, in order to make their point?

regardless, i have absolutely rushed to judgment and i shouldn’t. but it’s far worse when the media, hollywood, or politicians do it, as they have influence. i can’t even influence
my wife.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservatives never make #^&#^&#^&#^& up


This morning we learned the utterly unsurprising news that the loon who’s—allegedly—been mailing crude bombs to every Democratic politician and TV talking head he could think of is—allegedly—a gentleman named Cesar Sayoc, who seems to be devoted to Donald Trump. And since then a few ordinarily chatty folks on Twitter have gone inexplicably radio silent.
Some talking heads in Trumpworld, you see, had backed themselves into a bit of a corner over the last few days, making increasingly bombastic pronouncements and speculations—they were just asking questions!—that the perpetrator was not a mentally imbalanced Republican, but a crooked, calculating #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& looking to drum up sympathy for the Democratic party before the midterms.

Dinesh D'Souza
✔
@DineshDSouza
Fake sexual assault victims. Fake refugees. Now fake mail bombs. We are all learning how the media left are masters of distortion, deflection & deception

45.3K
11:21 AM - Oct 25, 2018

Bill Mitchell

This guy Cesar is looking like a "sleeper" implanted by the Democrats just for such an occasion as this. I mean, c'mon, that van is ridiculous.

8,819
12:24 PM - Oct 26, 2018

Candace Owens

Rush Limbaugh

Lou Dobbs

Ann Coulter


Donald Trump

Hey, don’t act so surprised! President Trump can never resist a good Twitter conspiracy, and he let rip with his own spin on the formula Friday morning:
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Republicans are doing so well in early voting, and at the polls, and now this “Bomb” stuff happens and the momentum greatly slows - news not talking politics. Very unfortunate, what is going on. Republicans, go out and vote!

107K
9:19 AM - Oct 26, 2018

That's just one issue, we could go into lies about immigrants and asylum seekers.

But never fear we can forgive conservatives ignorance of facts, though this is science and likely fake.

As of August 1, fact-checkers found that Donald Trump made 4,229 false or misleading statements during his brief presidency, enough to require a container ship to haul them whenever he travels abroad.

At the same time, he’s still supported by 91 percent of Republicans. Why the dichotomy? Science has an explanation.

The non-partisan Pew Research Center surveyed 5,000 people, presenting them with 10 statements -- five of which were factual, and five mere opinion – asking them to identify each. Across the board, people age 49 and under more accurately separated fact from pretense of fact. Or to put it less politely, those 50 and older were decidedly more gullible.



The reason, researchers speculate, is that younger people are more digitally savvy, and thus have more finely tuned bull#^&#^&#^&#^& meters. They’re also considerably more educated and less likely to identify with a specific party, meaning they’re less prone to confuse doctrine for truth.

This presents a problem for Republicans. As a general rule, the older you are, the more conservative you’re likely to be. Which leads us to a second study by Britain’s famed Oxford University.

Researchers there monitored 47,000 U.S. Facebook pages and 13,500 Twitter accounts, tracking who was mostly likely to read or peddle “junk news,” defined as sites that “deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information.”


Their findings: “Hard-right” conservatives shared more fake news stories than all other groups combined. Despite their protestations, they’re also the largest consumers of fake news.

Combine the two studies, and one might conclude that conservatives aren’t propagating fraud on purpose. They simply can’t tell the difference. And that’s reflected in their choice of news outlets.

When Fairleigh #^&#^&#^&#^&inson University researchers tried to equate civic knowledge with various news sources, it asked people basic questions like, "Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives?"

Viewers of Fox News, the televised arm of the GOP, scored at the bottom of 30 popular news sources. In fact, the survey found that viewers of Fox were less informed than people who followed no news at all.

So, dear reader, the next time you see online commenters talk of “crisis actors,” the “deep state,” or migrant gangs coming to take Minnesota’s lake homes, show some mercy. They know not what they speak.

..

Scott, you missed the point. It's OK when he does it, it's only a character flaw when I do it.

Conservatives never make #^&#^&#^&#^& up


This morning we learned the utterly unsurprising news that the loon who’s—allegedly—been mailing crude bombs to every Democratic politician and TV talking head he could think of is—allegedly—a gentleman named Cesar Sayoc, who seems to be devoted to Donald Trump. And since then a few ordinarily chatty folks on Twitter have gone inexplicably radio silent.
Some talking heads in Trumpworld, you see, had backed themselves into a bit of a corner over the last few days, making increasingly bombastic pronouncements and speculations—they were just asking questions!—that the perpetrator was not a mentally imbalanced Republican, but a crooked, calculating #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& looking to drum up sympathy for the Democratic party before the midterms.

Dinesh D'Souza
✔
@DineshDSouza
Fake sexual assault victims. Fake refugees. Now fake mail bombs. We are all learning how the media left are masters of distortion, deflection & deception

45.3K
11:21 AM - Oct 25, 2018

Bill Mitchell

This guy Cesar is looking like a "sleeper" implanted by the Democrats just for such an occasion as this. I mean, c'mon, that van is ridiculous.

8,819
12:24 PM - Oct 26, 2018

Candace Owens

Rush Limbaugh

Lou Dobbs

Ann Coulter


Donald Trump

Hey, don’t act so surprised! President Trump can never resist a good Twitter conspiracy, and he let rip with his own spin on the formula Friday morning:
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Republicans are doing so well in early voting, and at the polls, and now this “Bomb” stuff happens and the momentum greatly slows - news not talking politics. Very unfortunate, what is going on. Republicans, go out and vote!

107K
9:19 AM - Oct 26, 2018

That's just one issue, we could go into lies about immigrants and asylum seekers.

But never fear we can forgive conservatives ignorance of facts, though this is science and likely fake.

As of August 1, fact-checkers found that Donald Trump made 4,229 false or misleading statements during his brief presidency, enough to require a container ship to haul them whenever he travels abroad.

At the same time, he’s still supported by 91 percent of Republicans. Why the dichotomy? Science has an explanation.

The non-partisan Pew Research Center surveyed 5,000 people, presenting them with 10 statements -- five of which were factual, and five mere opinion – asking them to identify each. Across the board, people age 49 and under more accurately separated fact from pretense of fact. Or to put it less politely, those 50 and older were decidedly more gullible.



The reason, researchers speculate, is that younger people are more digitally savvy, and thus have more finely tuned bull#^&#^&#^&#^& meters. They’re also considerably more educated and less likely to identify with a specific party, meaning they’re less prone to confuse doctrine for truth.

This presents a problem for Republicans. As a general rule, the older you are, the more conservative you’re likely to be. Which leads us to a second study by Britain’s famed Oxford University.

Researchers there monitored 47,000 U.S. Facebook pages and 13,500 Twitter accounts, tracking who was mostly likely to read or peddle “junk news,” defined as sites that “deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information.”


Their findings: “Hard-right” conservatives shared more fake news stories than all other groups combined. Despite their protestations, they’re also the largest consumers of fake news.

Combine the two studies, and one might conclude that conservatives aren’t propagating fraud on purpose. They simply can’t tell the difference. And that’s reflected in their choice of news outlets.

When Fairleigh #^&#^&#^&#^&inson University researchers tried to equate civic knowledge with various news sources, it asked people basic questions like, "Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives?"

Viewers of Fox News, the televised arm of the GOP, scored at the bottom of 30 popular news sources. In fact, the survey found that viewers of Fox were less informed than people who followed no news at all.

So, dear reader, the next time you see online commenters talk of “crisis actors,” the “deep state,” or migrant gangs coming to take Minnesota’s lake homes, show some mercy. They know not what they speak.

"Conservatives never make #^&#^&#^&#^& up"

Once again, you respond to something that no one has ever said. Sure, there are tons of conservatives who lie. Is there a pattern of making up crimes to punish liberals we disagree with?

"As of August 1, fact-checkers found that Donald Trump made 4,229 false or misleading statements during his brief presidency,"

How many of those lies were told in the hopes of imprisoning the people being lied about? That's what we're talking about. Try to keep up.

"I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering" as the World Trade Center collapsed.

— Donald Trump on Saturday, November 21st, 2015 in comments during a speech

Arguing that there are terrorist sympathizers in the United States, Donald Trump says he saw "thousands" of New Jerseyans celebrating after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down," the Republican presidential candidate said at a Nov. 21 rally in Birmingham, Ala. "And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering."

The next day, ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump if he misspoke, noting that "the police say that didn't happen."

Trump -- who has said he was in his Manhattan apartment the morning of the attack -- doubled down.

"It was on television. I saw it," Trump said. "It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don't like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good."

Here, a NJ police captain confirms Trump's claim. So who is lying?

https://nypost.com/2015/12/21/nj-police-captain-says-some-muslims-did-celebrate-on-911/

Scott, you missed the point. It's OK when he does it, it's only a character flaw when I do it.

I didn't start a thread about it. I only posted to show you that boths sides/everyone does it.

Sorry if you missed the point.

Here, a NJ police captain confirms Trump's claim. So who is lying?

https://nypost.com/2015/12/21/nj-police-captain-says-some-muslims-did-celebrate-on-911/

Trump said he saw it from his home which was like 5 miles from Jersey city. He also claims "And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering."

So obviously Trump is lying again.

Trump said he saw it from his home which was like 5 miles from Jersey city. He also claims "And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering."

So obviously Trump is lying again.

I have little doubt he lied. His lie, would not have sent anyone to prison, would it? Did he name specific people by name, like what happened to that Sandman kid in KY, who may soon own the Washington Post?

OK, so getting back on topic, apparently he admitted to mailing himself the letters and creating this hoax.

Yeah, it's going to help his career....if he wanted to be seen on "TMZ" or "Celebrity wanna-be Jeopardy" or some other train-wreck glamorizing waste-of-time show!!!:wall::wall::wall:

OK, so getting back on topic, apparently he admitted to mailing himself the letters and creating this hoax.

Yeah, it's going to help his career....if he wanted to be seen on "TMZ" or "Celebrity wanna-be Jeopardy" or some other train-wreck glamorizing waste-of-time show!!!:wall::wall::wall:

perpetrating a hoax didn’t hurt Al Sharpton.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have little doubt he lied. His lie, would not have sent anyone to prison, would it? Did he name specific people by name, like what happened to that Sandman kid in KY, who may soon own the Washington Post?

Ok, bc I was confused bc you asked earlier who was the one lying.

I believe Trump repeatedly said that the central park 5 raped the women even after everyone else knew they didn't do it. So he continued to try to ruin their lives. And Trump continued to lie about "thousands and thousands" celebrating the WTC. I'm sure many faced repercussions from his continuing lying.

And the Repub. made him our President. If he was a Dem. you would be starting weekly threads stating how the Dems. don't have any morals and blah blah blah.

perpetrating a hoax didn’t hurt Al Sharpton.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Its going to hurt this guy, a lot.

Its going to hurt this guy, a lot.

We'll see.

Pundits at CNN are "heartbroken" that the hate crime didn't happen. They would prefer that a racist hate crime had taken place. No agenda there, no sir. That's where we are, they'd be happier if he was beaten by whites, had a noose tied around his neck, and sprayed with bleach.

All about The Narrative. Between the Covington case and this, I think The Narrative is going to check itself into rehab.

Ok, bc I was confused bc you asked earlier who was the one lying.

I believe Trump repeatedly said that the central park 5 raped the women even after everyone else knew they didn't do it. So he continued to try to ruin their lives. And Trump continued to lie about "thousands and thousands" celebrating the WTC. I'm sure many faced repercussions from his continuing lying.

And the Repub. made him our President. If he was a Dem. you would be starting weekly threads stating how the Dems. don't have any morals and blah blah blah.

Not sure how many times I have to say that Trump is a scumbag. I can admit that. You point out the bad stuff he does, and I say you're right he's a scumbag. I point out bad stuff the left does, and you respond by pointing out bad stuff Trump does. If you're saying that all these liberal politicians and media talking heads are no better than Trump, I agree (to a point), but you don't seem to want to say that. I point out good and bad on both sides, I don't see you doing that. I see you endlessly pointing out bad stuff that the right does.

We'll see.

Pundits at CNN are "heartbroken" that the hate crime didn't happen. They would prefer that a racist hate crime had taken place. No agenda there, no sir. That's where we are, they'd be happier if he was beaten by whites, had a noose tied around his neck, and sprayed with bleach.

All about The Narrative. Between the Covington case and this, I think The Narrative is going to check itself into rehab.

Show me the quote from people at CNN saying that, I heard them say either way it was bad. You certainly think, that someone did something really stupid, was a good outcome and it fits right into your narrative.

How's this fit into the Narrative?

Liberals hurt themselves, Conservatives kill others might be the narrative.

‘Domestic terrorist’ intended to ‘murder on a scale rarely seen’
Federal prosecutors have described a serving lieutenant in the US coast guard as a “domestic terrorist” after uncovering his alleged plot to murder Democratic members of Congress, high-profile journalists and civilians “on a scale rarely seen” in the US. Christopher Hasson, a marine corps veteran currently posted to coast guard HQ in Washington DC, is also thought to be a neo-Nazi, who stockpiled at least 15 guns and 1,000 rounds of ammunition at his basement apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Hit list. In a filing to federal court in Maryland, prosecutors said Hasson kept a spreadsheet of his intended targets, which included Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, as well as several journalists from CNN and MSNBC.

If you're saying that all these liberal politicians and media talking heads are no better than Trump, I agree (to a point), but you don't seem to want to say that.I have said that dozens of times. Both sides have bad actors and that is not limited to Trump on the right. I point out good and bad on both sides, I don't see you doing that.True, I don't point out good things on either side. I think I am consistent in that regard. I see you endlessly pointing out bad stuff that the right does.

The vast majority of the time I point out the bad things on the right in response to your blaming the left and it is to show as you said above, to point out that both sides do somethings.

The vast majority of the time I point out the bad things on the right in response to your blaming the left and it is to show as you said above, to point out that both sides do somethings.

you are the yin to jim's yang...you complete each other :spin:

.

I'm always amazed at how you continue to hit new levels of stupid :huh:

heh...heh....

Even After Sanders, Harris, and Others Enter Race, Bookies Have Donald Trump as Massive 2020 Favorite

Not sure how many times I have to say that Trump is a scumbag. I can admit that. You point out the bad stuff he does, and I say you're right he's a scumbag. I point out bad stuff the left does, and you respond by pointing out bad stuff Trump does. If you're saying that all these liberal politicians and media talking heads are no better than Trump, I agree (to a point), but you don't seem to want to say that. I point out good and bad on both sides, I don't see you doing that. I see you endlessly pointing out bad stuff that the right does.

If you can still support Don the Con, while ignoring the investigations, indictments, guilty pleas, lies, bullying, child imprisonment, money laundering, racism, misogyny, infidelity, environmental rape, and high treason, you’re not just misinformed.

I can deal with A turd, he's a pile of #^&#^&#^&#^&.

If you can still support Don the Con, while ignoring the investigations (still ongoing), indictments (Trump has not been indicted yet), guilty pleas (Trump has not yet pleaded guilty), lies, bullying, child imprisonment (was following precedent), money laundering (Trump has not yet been convicted of money laundering), racism, misogyny (Trump has not actually proven to be racist or mysogynist, in many cases it's quite the contrary), infidelity (not more than his famous predecessors, and not while in office), environmental rape (that's a matter of opinion not a fact), and high treason (He hasn't been officially charged much less proven guilty), you’re not just misinformed.

I can deal with A turd, he's a pile of #^&#^&#^&#^&.

Geeeez . . . I thought the very recent Kavanaugh, Covington kids, and Jessie Smollet things would teach us not to rush to judgment!

Geeeez . . . I thought the very recent Kavanaugh, Covington kids, and Jessie Smollet things would teach us not to rush to judgment!

pete works really hard to convince himself of things.......

you are the yin to jim's yang...you complete each other :spin:

We try. Soul mates.

We try. Soul mates.

:kewl:

Show me the quote from people at CNN saying that, I heard them say either way it was bad. You certainly think, that someone did something really stupid, was a good outcome and it fits right into your narrative.

How's this fit into the Narrative?

Liberals hurt themselves, Conservatives kill others might be the narrative.

‘Domestic terrorist’ intended to ‘murder on a scale rarely seen’
Federal prosecutors have described a serving lieutenant in the US coast guard as a “domestic terrorist” after uncovering his alleged plot to murder Democratic members of Congress, high-profile journalists and civilians “on a scale rarely seen” in the US. Christopher Hasson, a marine corps veteran currently posted to coast guard HQ in Washington DC, is also thought to be a neo-Nazi, who stockpiled at least 15 guns and 1,000 rounds of ammunition at his basement apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Hit list. In a filing to federal court in Maryland, prosecutors said Hasson kept a spreadsheet of his intended targets, which included Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, as well as several journalists from CNN and MSNBC.

"Show me the quote from people at CNN saying that"

Here's the quote...

Boykin, a CNN commentator, who said he’s known Smollet for eight years, was "devastated" by the news.

“It’s heartbreaking," he said. "I’m hoping still despite all the overwhelming evidence that is presented that it’s not true


If you're hoping it's not true that he made this up, that necessarily means you are hoping that the hate crime actually happened.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnns-keith-boykin-van-jones-defend-jussie-smollett-support-voice-despair-its-heartbreaking?fbclid=IwAR03CQCMB-RpUeT-brhCp2cAB1FyOqKQdx0Zt8qXY3npezxX3tD2GqaDJLY


"You certainly think, that someone did something really stupid, was a good outcome and it fits right into your narrative."

Look Einstein, either this bigoted hate crime happened, or it didn't. I hop it didn't. That means this guy made it up, and I'm sorry for that, I'm not calling for his head, I feel sorry for the guy, although if he did it just to get a salary increase, that's pretty darn bad.

My agenda is to address the real hate and get past the fake hate. If your agenda is a lot different than that, that's your problem.

"Liberals hurt themselves, Conservatives kill others might be the narrative"

Right, right. The 500 murders every year in Chicago, are done by the tiny minority on the city who are Republicans? Or is it all white Republicans from the suburbs who come in to shoot blacks? Stockbrokers and surgeons from the suburbs, go into the city on weekends to shoot blacks, is that what it is?

You're not worth talking to, it took that comment for me to realize that. It was such a stupid, demonstrably false, divisive comment. One of the dumbest things I've ever read.

BOTH SIDES have homicidal maniacs. Hate to break it to you.

If you can still support Don the Con, while ignoring the investigations, indictments, guilty pleas, lies, bullying, child imprisonment, money laundering, racism, misogyny, infidelity, environmental rape, and high treason, you’re not just misinformed.

I can deal with A turd, he's a pile of #^&#^&#^&#^&.

"ignoring the investigations" which have produced zero evidence of an impeachable offense. If that's wrong, please be very specific.

"child imprisonment"

Trump began that process? It wasn't policy that he inherited? Google the photos that people used to hammer Trump, which then turned out to be form the Obama years.

When you list of all of the many moral transgressions, and you make no mention of the accomplishments, anyone would look bad. When you balance the bad with the good, it paints a different picture. Which is why you ignore the good, because you're not interested in the truthful picture, you're interested in The Narrative.

Geeeez . . . I thought the very recent Kavanaugh, Covington kids, and Jessie Smollet things would teach us not to rush to judgment!
He was not following precedent, he changed the policy to separate ALL children from parents.
Quantity counts, a turd here and there is one thing, a pile you’re a Macher, some people still have a sense of smell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He was not following precedent, he changed the policy to separate ALL children from parents.
Quantity counts, a turd here and there is one thing, a pile you’re a Macher, some people still have a sense of smell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Quantity counts,"

SO putting 5 year-olds in cages is OK, as long as you do it less than a maximum number of times?

Off the top of your head, without looking, do you have any idea how often Obama did it, and how often Trump did it? I bet you don't. Yet somehow, you know Obama did it an acceptable number of times, but Trump exceeded that number. Funny how that always works out for you.

"Show me the quote from people at CNN saying that"

Here's the quote...

Boykin, a CNN commentator, who said he’s known Smollet for eight years, was "devastated" by the news.

“It’s heartbreaking," he said. "I’m hoping still despite all the overwhelming evidence that is presented that it’s not true


If you're hoping it's not true that he made this up, that necessarily means you are hoping that the hate crime actually happened.

Think about it, make believe you had a friend and he was accused of something bad. What would you say?

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnns-keith-boykin-van-jones-defend-jussie-smollett-support-voice-despair-its-heartbreaking?fbclid=IwAR03CQCMB-RpUeT-brhCp2cAB1FyOqKQdx0Zt8qXY3npezxX3tD2GqaDJLY

Another way to look at it:“Good news is Melania’s speech got more publicity than any in the history of politics,” he said, “especially if you believe that all press is good press!”

"You certainly think, that someone did something really stupid, was a good outcome and it fits right into your narrative."

Look Einstein, either this bigoted hate crime happened, or it didn't. I hop it didn't. That means this guy made it up, and I'm sorry for that, I'm not calling for his head, I feel sorry for the guy, although if he did it just to get a salary increase, that's pretty darn bad.

My agenda is to address the real hate and get past the fake hate. If your agenda is a lot different than that, that's your problem.

"Liberals hurt themselves, Conservatives kill others might be the narrative"

Right, right. The 500 murders every year in Chicago, are done by the tiny minority on the city who are Republicans? Or is it all white Republicans from the suburbs who come in to shoot blacks? Stockbrokers and surgeons from the suburbs, go into the city on weekends to shoot blacks, is that what it is?

You're replying to something I never said, as usual. Are you saying all blacks are liberals or just that murderers if they are not right wing terrorists are all liberals?

You're not worth talking to, it took that comment for me to realize that. It was such a stupid, demonstrably false, divisive comment. One of the dumbest things I've ever read.

BOTH SIDES have homicidal maniacs. Hate to break it to you.

Right-wing extremism in the United States appears to be growing. The number of terrorist attacks by far-right perpetrators rose over the past decade, more than quadrupling between 2016 and 2017. The recent pipe bombs and the October 27, 2018, synagogue attack in Pittsburgh are symptomatic of this trend. U.S. federal and local agencies need to quickly double down to counter this threat. There has also been a rise in far-right attacks in Europe, jumping 43 percent between 2016 and 2017.

The threat from right-wing terrorism in the United States—and Europe—appears to be rising. Of particular concern are white supremacists and anti-government extremists, such as militia groups and so-called sovereign citizens interested in plotting attacks against government, racial, religious, and political targets in the United States. The October 27, 2018, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting by Robert Bowers, and the arrest a day earlier of Cesar Sayoc who sent pipe bombs to prominent Democrats, appear to be the most recent manifestations of this trend. Both perpetrators were far-right extremists. Although violent left-wing groups and individuals also present a threat, far-right-networks appear to be better armed and larger. There also is a continuing threat from extremists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. But the number of attacks from right-wing extremists since 2014 has been greater than attacks from Islamic extremists.

Good job here, boys. Another thread driven right off the rails.....

"Quantity counts,"

SO putting 5 year-olds in cages is OK, as long as you do it less than a maximum number of times?

Off the top of your head, without looking, do you have any idea how often Obama did it, and how often Trump did it? I bet you don't. Yet somehow, you know Obama did it an acceptable number of times, but Trump exceeded that number. Funny how that always works out for you.

Quantity referred to the smoke around Trump and his associates but since you asked.

No, I have time, I'll look it up for you. I've looked at the issue before.

It's really not that hard to understand the difference.

BUSH

President George W. Bush began the trend of a "zero tolerance" approach in 2005 with Operation Streamline, but during his administration, exceptions were generally made for adults traveling with minors.

OBAMA

U.S. President Barack Obama made changes to immigration policy, releasing parents and focusing on deportation of immigrants who committed crimes in the U.S. Attempting to cope with the 2014 American immigration crisis, a surge of refugees fleeing violence in Central America, while complying with the 1997 Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement consent decree by keeping families together, under Obama the Department of Homeland Security built family detention centers in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Texas.

In 2015 Obama introduced the Family Case Management Program which, according to the fact sheet about the program, specifically prioritized "families with certain vulnerabilities, including pregnant or nursing family member; those with very young children; family members with medical/mental health concerns; families who speak only indigenous languages; and other special needs" to offer an alternative to being held in detention centers while awaiting the court to process their asylum claims, which often takes years.

Jeh Johnson, who served as homeland security secretary under Obama, said he did not separate children and parents despite the enormous surges of unaccompanied minors and families that came across the border in 2014 fleeing Central American violence.

"In three years on my watch, we probably deported or returned or repatriated about a million people to enforce border security. One of the things I could not do is separate a child from his or her mother, or literally pull a mother from his or her arms," Johnson said on MSNBC last week. “I just couldn’t do it.”

Obama’s top domestic policy adviser, Cecilia Muñoz, said the Obama administration did consider a similar policy, but determined it heartless.

"The agencies were surfacing every possible idea,” Muñoz told The New York Times in an interview recently. "I do remember looking at each other like, ‘We’re not going to do this, are we?’ We spent five minutes thinking it through and concluded that it was a bad idea. The morality of it was clear — that’s not who we are."

TRUMP

The Trump administration family separation policy was an aspect of U.S. President Donald Trump's immigration policy. The policy was presented to the public as a "zero tolerance" approach intended to deter illegal immigration and to encourage tougher legislation. It was adopted across the whole U.S.–Mexico border from April 2018 until June 2018.

Under Trump's policy, federal authorities separated children from parents or guardians with whom they had entered the US. The adults were prosecuted and held in federal jails, and the children placed under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Trump administration separated 1,995 children from 1,940 adults from April 19 to May 31, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said Friday, a period in which the "zero tolerance" policy was in effect.

President Donald Trump rescinded the policy June 20, 2018, after a public outcry about it. The Department of Health and Human Services initially reported caring for 2,654 children after Trump's order.

But the department’s inspector general reported Thursday that Customs and Border Protection’s El Paso sector had begun implementing policies that separated families in July 2017.

Under a federal court order, HHS eventually identified 2,737 children that were cared for after Trump’s order.

“However, thousands of children may have been separated during an influx that began in 2017, before the accounting required by the court, and HHS has faced challenges in identifying separated children,” the 24-page report said.

He was not following precedent, he changed the policy to separate ALL children from parents.
Quantity counts, a turd here and there is one thing, a pile you’re a Macher, some people still have a sense of smell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you try to justify one out of nine rushes to judgement. That's weak. And wrong. Trump didn't change the supposed precedent. Sessions did. And Sessions was following the law. And Trump was the one who ended it.

If the law had been followed correctly in the past, many parents would likely have changed their minds about trying to illegally cross the border, especially with their children. And the children were often used to help game the system. And American children are routinely separated from parents who are incarcerated. The whole thing was a dumb meme to smear the attempt to restrict illegal immigration.

Your screed accused Trump of things before he has actually been convicted of them--a rush to judgment--as well as trying to make him out to be a far greater and beastly dropper of turds than he is.

The overkill does not speak well of you.

Its going to hurt this guy, a lot.

you might be right, the chief of chicago police wasn’t very happy. he was awesome.

i also saw some of this guys tweets about Trump, he
makes Pete look like Sean Hannity.

today’s liberals act like we’re living in birmingham in the 1950s. because they hate the president and becuse things are going mostly well, they have to invent mass bigotry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Trump REALLY, REALLY wants to give the liberals the final shove to send them off the cliffs of insanity, if he wants to destroy the last speck of sanity left in their brains, he should pardon this guy. If he did do, they'd nominate Stalin to run against him in 2020. I think this guy is insane, probably doesn't belong in prison, and he might like it there anyways. Flip the script and pardon him, and watch the left's final descent into the depths of insanity (not a very long trip from where they are at the moment)

And Don Lemon says it's not the Smollett's fault, because "maybe, who knows", his agents put him up to it. Isn't he still responsible for oh the hell with it...

If Trump REALLY, REALLY wants to give the liberals the final shove to send them off the cliffs of insanity, if he wants to destroy the last speck of sanity left in their brains, he should pardon this guy. If he did do, they'd nominate Stalin to run against him in 2020. I think this guy is insane, probably doesn't belong in prison, and he might like it there anyways. Flip the script and pardon him, and watch the left's final descent into the depths of insanity (not a very long trip from where they are at the moment)

And Don Lemon says it's not the Smollett's fault, because "maybe, who knows", his agents put him up to it. Isn't he still responsible for oh the hell with it...
Jim, you OK? I’m serious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, you OK? I’m serious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your side humiliated themselves yet again, the only question is how much this helps the gop, so i’m good, thanks! and the stock market is rocking so far this year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence and paul, why do you suppose Smollet assumed he’d get away with this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

although i guess a potus can’t pardon a state crime, learn something new every day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence and paul, why do you suppose Smollet assumed he’d get away with this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because he is a moron, obviously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because he is a moron, obviously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactlly. Stupid people do stupid stuff every day.

This man has unified the country as well as this board. Anyone with any common sense admits he is stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This man has unified the country as well as this board. Anyone with any common sense admits he is stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure spence could defend him....he's got an impressive resume :hihi:

Exactlly. Stupid people do stupid stuff every day.

I agree with that, and often it's me doing the stupid stuff.

But there are a million ways you can perpetrate a hoax. Why did he pick this exact scenario, where white Trump supporters attacked him for being black and gay? Why do you think, of the limitless choices available to him, he selected to fabricate a racist and homophobic attack at the hands of white Trump supporters. Maxine Waters, a member of Congress, explicitly blamed Trump.

I saw an hysterical actress on a late night show essentially blame Pence, she was quivering and shaking, saying that if Pence dedicates his life to hating people, he can't be surprised when these things happen. This is the same Pence who repealed an Indiana state law, which said that Christian business owners don't have to participate in gay weddings, he acted exactly the way Smollett would have wanted him to. But that doesn't matter. Pence is white with grey hair, so being a victim at his hand, is a badge of honor that comes with significant rewards. THAT is what Smollett was seeking.

There were two actual hate crimes recently, a conservative at Berkley (the place of tolerance) who got assaulted for his beliefs, and that maniac in the Coast Guard who wanted to kill democrats. Scary times.

I think he did it so conserv. heads would explode.

I think he did it so conserv. heads would explode.

In other words, the answer to my question doesn't serve your agenda, so you won't answer.

I guess some of that (seeking success via victim status) happens on both sides. But it's like a currency on the left these days, it's constant. It never stops among the democrat leaders, among the media, and Hollywood.

The guy needs help, and looks like a prime suspect for suicide to me.

I do my taxes soon, and will then book some fishing trips for spring/summer. Can't get here fast enough.

your side humiliated themselves yet again, the only question is how much this helps the gop, so i’m good, thanks! and the stock market is rocking so far this year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Only one humiliated here is Smullett, he's got issues.

seeking success via victim status
This is the core strategy of the Trump campaign.

Only one humiliated here is Smullett, he's got issues.

"Only one humiliated here is Smullett"

Not by a long shot. Kamela Harris, Corey Booker, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters for damn sure, god knows how many cable news hosts and guests, god knows how many celebrities. And that includes some conservatives.

This is the core strategy of the Trump campaign.

The core strategy of his re-election campaign, will be the economy. Character, I suppose, will not be a key theme.

He is a victim. It takes a lot of work to make a guy that gross, appear sympathetic, but the left has done it. Because they can't be fair. And by "fair", I don't mean to follow Sean Hannity's lead and lick his boots all day. "Fair" means criticize him when he deserves it, compliment him when he deserves it. The left can't come close to doing that.

Look at the democrat Congressional reaction to good news presented during the SOTU. They were absolutely miserable that good things took place during Trumps presidency. I'm not saying that Republicans didn't want Obama to fail, of course they did. But they weren't this overt, it wasn't all they did.

The core strategy of his re-election campaign, will be the economy. Character, I suppose, will not be a key theme.



name a politician for whom character is a key theme :confused:

name a politician for whom character is a key theme :confused:

Eisenhower?

Not many have the character issues Trump has. But his character isn’t as bad as the left wants us to believe. but his policies have mostly been very good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Eisenhower?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was talking current......

I was talking current......

that’s the
most current one i can think of.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was talking current......

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR. cum laude graduate of harvard and harvard law, decorated combat officer in the army in afghanistan. he’s going places.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was talking current......

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR. cum laude graduate of harvard and harvard law, decorated combat officer in the army in afghanistan. he’s going places.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never heard of this poor guy before this hoax (assuming that's what it was), feel bad for the guy, probably a desperate cry for attention and sympathy.

ONCE AGAIN, the media and the far left (sorry for the redundancy there) saw an opportunity to smear the right, and jumped the gun before anything like due process took place.

HOW MANY TIMES do these morons have to end up with egg on their faces, before they just wait for investigations to take place? Duke lacrosse, hands up don't shoot, the Rolling Stone U-VA rape case, the Covington kids, now this.

This is a great opportunity for us to collectively take a deep breath, and start over. But it won't happen, Trump Derangement Syndrome is way too powerful.

Hope this guy doesn't commit suicide. Pathetic.

Now they have dropped the charges.
Sometimes things are not as they seem and morons rush to judgement.
Perhaps you should have taken a deep breath.
I know it's hard being a victim.

Now they have dropped the charges.
Sometimes things are not as they seem and morons rush to judgement.
Perhaps you should have taken a deep breath.
I know it's hard being a victim.
That’s great, did you hear OJ was innocent too?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Will Jim now support him if he files a law suite against those who spoke poorly about him? like Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic High School student..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sometimes things are not as they seem and morons rush to judgement.


Maybe they should have gotten Meuller to investigate

Seems stupid to let him off.

Now they have dropped the charges.
Sometimes things are not as they seem and morons rush to judgement.
Perhaps you should have taken a deep breath.
I know it's hard being a victim.

not sure if you can read, but my post which you quoted, specifically says i feel bad for the guy, and specifically says i don’t know what happened.

swing and a miss...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Will Jim now support him if he files a law suite against those who spoke poorly about him? like Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic High School student..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there’s hours of video evidence showing that Sandman did nothing wrong, and that the media was lying to serve the liberal narrative.

this actor paid two friends to attack him, and claimed it was white trump supporters. is any of that in dispute?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we know that state’s attorney Fixx had previously been contacted by a Smoklett relative who worked on Michelle Obama’s staff. surely that played no role.

Time for the feds to investigate whether or not he mailed that letter to himself that had white powder on it. if it did, try him, convict him, then trump should
pardon him, and then everyone at MSNBC and CNN will jump off a cliff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure if you can read, but my post which you quoted, specifically says i feel bad for the guy, and specifically says i don’t know what happened.

swing and a miss...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As you claimed in your post, which I read, perhaps you did not, so for your edification I will quote it here.
"HOW MANY TIMES do these morons have to end up with egg on their faces, before they just wait for investigations to take place? Duke lacrosse, hands up don't shoot, the Rolling Stone U-VA rape case, the Covington kids, now this."

Of course he's been exonerated now, that's defined as not going forward with a prosecution in your book, isn't it?

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/03/jussie-smollett-exonerated-no-collusion/

we know that state’s attorney Fixx had previously been contacted by a Smoklett relative who worked on Michelle Obama’s staff. surely that played no role.

Time for the feds to investigate whether or not he mailed that letter to himself that had white powder on it. if it did, try him, convict him, then trump should
pardon him, and then everyone at MSNBC and CNN will jump off a cliff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I found it interesting that all charges were dropped but yet he voluntarily forfieted his bail. That is a tad strange.

Doesn't look like its going to be all sunshine and unicorns.

10:45 AM PT -- Mayor Rahm Emanuel is very strongly hinting at corruption in the State's Attorney's Office, calling the decision to drop the charges against Smollett a "whitewash of justice."

The Mayor added, "From top to bottom, this is not on the level." He called for accountability from the prosecutors.

Emanuel was joined by Chicago PD Superintendent Eddie Johnson who said he didn't feel justice was served by letting Smollett off the hook.

What's more, Johnson said if Jussie was, in fact, innocent ... he should've taken his day in court, and not broker a backdoor deal in secrecy. Bigger picture -- Johnson feels the City of Chicago is still owed an apology, as he believes Jussie carried out a hoax.

I found it interesting that all charges were dropped but yet he voluntarily forfieted his bail. That is a tad strange.

The prosecutors said it's not an exoneration, almost sounds like they fined him $10,000 and called it a day. Then they sealed the file, so we may never know what the heck happened.

As you claimed in your post, which I read, perhaps you did not, so for your edification I will quote it here.
"HOW MANY TIMES do these morons have to end up with egg on their faces, before they just wait for investigations to take place? Duke lacrosse, hands up don't shoot, the Rolling Stone U-VA rape case, the Covington kids, now this."

Of course he's been exonerated now, that's defined as not going forward with a prosecution in your book, isn't it?

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/03/jussie-smollett-exonerated-no-collusion/

"Of course he's been exonerated now"

The hell he has. The prosecutors specifically said, "this is not an exoneration".

Paul, we know he said it was white guys wearing MAGA hats who attacked him, we know in reality it was black friends of his, we know he paid them, we know they bought the rope. We know he refused to turn over his phone, and when he did, it had been cleansed. Is any of that in dispute?

Let's let the FBI look into whether or not he emailed the letter to himself with white powder. I will happily live with whatever they conclude.

As you claimed in your post, which I read, perhaps you did not, so for your edification I will quote it here.
"HOW MANY TIMES do these morons have to end up with egg on their faces, before they just wait for investigations to take place? Duke lacrosse, hands up don't shoot, the Rolling Stone U-VA rape case, the Covington kids, now this."

Of course he's been exonerated now, that's defined as not going forward with a prosecution in your book, isn't it?

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/03/jussie-smollett-exonerated-no-collusion/

the people with egg on their faces, are the monsters in the media who yet again, rushed to judgment and spun the story in a way to bash Trump supporters, and also to fan the flames of racial unrest. it’s disgusting.

the prosecutors specifically said its not an exoneration, and that they believe he lied to the police. there’s absolutely no way of knowing what happened, but if he was exonerated, he’d get his bail back, wouldn’t he?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn't look like its going to be all sunshine and unicorns.

10:45 AM PT -- Mayor Rahm Emanuel is very strongly hinting at corruption in the State's Attorney's Office, calling the decision to drop the charges against Smollett a "whitewash of justice."

The Mayor added, "From top to bottom, this is not on the level." He called for accountability from the prosecutors.

Emanuel was joined by Chicago PD Superintendent Eddie Johnson who said he didn't feel justice was served by letting Smollett off the hook.

What's more, Johnson said if Jussie was, in fact, innocent ... he should've taken his day in court, and not broker a backdoor deal in secrecy. Bigger picture -- Johnson feels the City of Chicago is still owed an apology, as he believes Jussie carried out a hoax.

Jussie has a family member who worked for Michelle Obama. This family member reaches out to the lead prosecutor, who then recused herself from the case.

now the file is sealed. very strange.

and he’s not out of the woods with the feds because he likely mailed himself a letter with white powder, and given the vindictive nature of Trump, if i was this jerk actor, i’d be expecting a visit from the FBI.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course he's been exonerated now

]

you can't be this dumb

you can't be this dumb
Constantly providing proof
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Prosecutors are saying he forfeited his bond, and tjeybagreed to drop the charges in response
to community service he has done. That's not an exoneration, but not what you'd expect if he was convicted either.

Very strange.

Bring on the feds.

.

the prosecutors specifically said its not an exoneration, and that they believe he lied to the police. there’s absolutely no way of knowing what happened, but if he was exonerated, he’d get his bail back, wouldn’t he?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought it worked like this:

No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

I thought it worked like this:

No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Stop confirming your lack of comprehension PeteF. Unless you are just being contrarian. In which case you have accomplished nothing. Go play with more straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought it worked like this:

No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

here’s the thing. there’s no evidence trump colluded. there’s all kinds of evidence that Smlet stages this.

what do you think happened here? what do you think is the most likely story? is it more likely that he truly staged this, or that the police framed him for that?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought it worked like this:

No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

If the Special Counsel did not conclude that Trump committed a crime, then there could not be an indictment. The matter was thoroughly investigated. There was no crime found. End of matter. Nothing more need, nor should, be said. There is no need to "exonerate" someone for what has not been concluded to be a crime. And the DOJ concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute for a crime. The DOJ's conclusion was part of the whole process of the investigation. Therefor, part of the final report.

Ha, the state AG recuses herself and the assistant AG drops the charges and proclaims that Smollet is guilty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the Special Counsel did not conclude that Trump committed a crime, then there could not be an indictment. The matter was thoroughly investigated. There was no crime found.
Barr reported this “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election”
End of matter. Nothing more need, nor should, be said. There is no need to "exonerate" someone for what has not been concluded to be a crime. And the DOJ concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute for a crime. The DOJ's conclusion was part of the whole process of the investigation. Therefor, part of the final report.
What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

Pete, do you think Smullett staged this?

Pete, do you think Smullett staged this?

Waiting for due process to take place :fishslap:

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

Even if they can prove he colluded (which they can't), there is question about whether or not that's even a crime.

Waiting for due process to take place :fishslap:

It did take place, it's done. So what do you think happened?

We get it, you don't want to answer. because if you say he staged it (which he obviously did), you go against the narrative, and liberals can't do that. If you say you don't think he staged it, you know you look stupid.

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

I don't know WTF you're trying to say here. It is often dizzying trying to follow your trains of thought. Your brain seems to be wired differently than usual humans. Perhaps you are a superior form of life.

As far as I know, there were no special counsels appointed to investigate Benghazi or Hillary's emails. Nonetheless, incorporating your whataboutisms (it seems that you and wdmso are constantly allowed whataboutisms but others of us are chided against doing so) are you saying that either both Trump and Hillary should be locked up, or that neither of them should?

Could you please clarify?

As far as I know, there were no special counsels appointed to investigate Benghazi or Hillary's emails.
Investigations only count if you employ a special counsel?Nonetheless, incorporating your whataboutisms (it seems that you and wdmso are constantly allowed whataboutisms but others of us are chided against doing so) are you saying that either both Trump and Hillary should be locked up, or that neither of them should?

Could you please clarify?


Pretty simple, perhaps both should be locked up using Trump's logic

Both Benghazi and the email issue were investigated and no indictments issued
Never stopped the opposition from calling: Lock them up

What is the difference between those investigations and this one, other than that the same people are now on the opposite sides?

It did take place, it's done. So what do you think happened?

We get it, you don't want to answer. because if you say he staged it (which he obviously did), you go against the narrative, and liberals can't do that. If you say you don't think he staged it, you know you look stupid.

I don't see a conviction, or even a trial and right now Smollet is doing a Trump imitation in the media, proclaiming his innocence, pretty comical that you find that upsetting and think I should prejudge him and he should be hung without due process.
As you said, and I quote: "HOW MANY TIMES do these morons have to end up with egg on their faces, before they just wait for investigations to take place?"

PeteF. Is dizzy from chasing his tail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't see a conviction, or even a trial and right now Smollet is doing a Trump imitation in the media, proclaiming his innocence, pretty comical that you find that upsetting and think I should prejudge him and he should be hung without due process.
As you said, and I quote: "HOW MANY TIMES do these morons have to end up with egg on their faces, before they just wait for investigations to take place?"

You didn't answer the question I asked.

Do you think he staged the attack? The answer is yes or no.

Pretty simple, perhaps both should be locked up using Trump's logic

Both Benghazi and the email issue were investigated and no indictments issued
Never stopped the opposition from calling: Lock them up

What is the difference between those investigations and this one, other than that the same people are now on the opposite sides?

Whether they are or not, special counsels are not ostensibly politically driven. Congressional investigations are. That's why, as in Benghazi, the opinions of what was "found" were quite contrary. And Hillary's failure in Benghazi was not a crime, nor treason, nor conspiracy, but just plain incompetence. Incompetence is not an indictable offense. And neither investigation, Benghazi nor the emails, required under oath interviews subject to perjury traps. The lenience given to Hillary and those around her in the email investigation was not afforded in Mueller's investigation. People like Flynn and Papadopoulos were convicted of silly process crimes that Hillary's people were spared from being subjected to. In the email investigation there was no attempt to squeeze witnesses into "singing" and "composing" or facing criminal charges or worse convictions .

Comparing the thoroughness, intensity and strictness of Mueller's investigation to the laxity of the email scandal "investigation" is a farce.

You didn't answer the question I asked.

Do you think he staged the attack? The answer is yes or no.
I don't know what happened, I have seen zero evidence and only heard hearsay, somehow you have now tried him and found him guilty, all by yourself.
What court did you do this in?
Or did you do this with the assistance of Faux and Judge Carlson?
Or did I miss this elsewhere in the news?

Whether they are or not, special counsels are not ostensibly politically driven. Congressional investigations are. That's why, as in Benghazi, the opinions of what was "found" were quite contrary. And Hillary's failure in Benghazi was not a crime, nor treason, nor conspiracy, but just plain incompetence. Incompetence is not an indictable offense. And neither investigation, Benghazi nor the emails, required under oath interviews subject to perjury traps. The lenience given to Hillary and those around her in the email investigation was not afforded in Mueller's investigation. People like Flynn and Papadopoulos were convicted of silly process crimes that Hillary's people were spared from being subjected to. In the email investigation there was no attempt to squeeze witnesses into "singing" and "composing" or facing criminal charges or worse convictions .

Comparing the thoroughness, intensity and strictness of Mueller's investigation to the laxity of the email scandal "investigation" is a farce.
Benghazi was investigated by a Republican Congress for a cost of 7 million and yielded a bunch of footstomping, it did later downstream result in Comey's announcement during the campaign of continuing investigation into her emails. Some here would claim this was an FBI plot to somehow aid her campaign.
Perhaps you feel that the rule of law only applies in some cases and white lies don't count, since they didn't hurt anyone. Flynn and Papadopulos both plead guilty, didn't they?
Perhaps the danger of leaking emails pales in comparison to Russian interference in our elections and therefor needed a different level of investigation in comparison to Benghazi.
Mueller is likely the most qualified and competent investigator in this country.
I want to see his report, not the parsed comments of a political appointee.

I don't know what happened, I have seen zero evidence and only heard hearsay, somehow you have now tried him and found him guilty, all by yourself.
What court did you do this in?
Or did you do this with the assistance of Faux and Judge Carlson?
Or did I miss this elsewhere in the news?

You’ve seen zero evidence??

he said it was white guys, two black guys confessed

the black guys we’re friends of his, were seen in surveillance cameras as the only human beings in the area at the time of the attack

they had receipts for rope and bleach, used in the attack

smollet has spoken to them
just before, and just after the attack, on his phone

smollett refuses to turn over his phone, and when he did, it had been altered

we also know that the grand jury indicted on 16 felonies, and that smolletts family has connections with the obamas

you knew none of this? You’re a liar. you a brain dead thoughtless zombie, who can’t bring himself to admit what everybratuonal person knows, that he staged this. your brain can’t let you admit this, because in your mind, i guess, that’s saying all liberals are bad and all conservatives are good.

He staged this. your beliefs don’t allow you to admit the obvious. time for
new beliefs when you are trapped by such obvious truth.

Protect the narrative at all costs.

You humiliated yourself here.

all by myself? how about what the cops have said, and wht the grand jury did, and the fact that his two black friends confessed to a crime he said was carried out by white trump
supporters?

pathetic.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul S, do you think he staged this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim he must not watch tv or read the news


You’ve seen zero evidence??

he said it was white guys, two black guys confessed

the black guys we’re friends of his, were seen in surveillance cameras as the only human beings in the area at the time of the attack

they had receipts for rope and bleach, used in the attack

smollet has spoken to them
just before, and just after the attack, on his phone

smollett refuses to turn over his phone, and when he did, it had been altered

we also know that the grand jury indicted on 16 felonies, and that smolletts family has connections with the obamas

you knew none of this? You’re a liar. you a brain dead thoughtless zombie, who can’t bring himself to admit what everybratuonal person knows, that he staged this. your brain can’t let you admit this, because in your mind, i guess, that’s saying all liberals are bad and all conservatives are good.

He staged this. your beliefs don’t allow you to admit the obvious. time for
new beliefs when you are trapped by such obvious truth.

Protect the narrative at all costs.

You humiliated yourself here.

all by myself? how about what the cops have said, and wht the grand jury did, and the fact that his two black friends confessed to a crime he said was carried out by white trump
supporters?

pathetic.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Benghazi was investigated by a Republican Congress for a cost of 7 million and yielded a bunch of footstomping,

Like I said, congressional investigations are politically driven. You wanted to know what the difference was in the investigations. You are demonstrating that. And, since you bring it up, what was yielded was that HRC egregiously mishandled (some would say was grossly negligent [sound familiar] in) the security of the Benghazi post.

it did later downstream result in Comey's announcement during the campaign of continuing investigation into her emails. Some here would claim this was an FBI plot to somehow aid her campaign.
Perhaps you feel that the rule of law only applies in some cases and white lies don't count, since they didn't hurt anyone. Flynn and Papadopulos both plead guilty, didn't they?

The rule of law applied in the Flynn and Papadopoulos cases. Perhaps more harshly than necessary. Those FBI who interviewed Flynn did not think he was lying nor that inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. But, that apparently did not matter. His unintentional or inaccurate statements were used as "lies" in order to coerce him into cooperation. He has yet to be sentenced. But he pretty much was bankrupted (another tactic that the FBI uses to squeeze confessions and cooperation) by legal fees. And no conspiracy, in the end, was found. Great job FBI!

Papadopoulos did intentionally tell a little stinker intending, in his mind, to protect the President. But it was basically not about much, and some believe he was set up. But the FBI must not have thought that his lie was really important. He only got 14 days. Which is probably 14 days more than he deserved for something that was inconsequential.

And neither Flynn's nor Papadopoulos's "crimes" occurred before the investigation, but were a result of FBI tactics during it. What is called a process crime, not a crime that is germane to the reason for the investigation.

On the other hand, Hillary's more dangerous handling of emails was not as harshly and strictly (or not at all) subject to the rule of law.

Perhaps the danger of leaking emails pales in comparison to Russian interference in our elections and therefor needed a different level of investigation in comparison to Benghazi.
Mueller is likely the most qualified and competent investigator in this country.
I want to see his report, not the parsed comments of a political appointee.

"Perhaps" and "likely" you, in your brilliant and authoritative dissection, will find fault with his report. I am sure that you will see exactly what you want to see. So far, Mueller hasn't disputed what Barr has said.

You’ve seen zero evidence??

he said it was white guys, two black guys confessed

the black guys we’re friends of his, were seen in surveillance cameras as the only human beings in the area at the time of the attack

they had receipts for rope and bleach, used in the attack

smollet has spoken to them
just before, and just after the attack, on his phone

smollett refuses to turn over his phone, and when he did, it had been altered

we also know that the grand jury indicted on 16 felonies, and that smolletts family has connections with the obamas

you knew none of this? You’re a liar. you a brain dead thoughtless zombie, who can’t bring himself to admit what everybratuonal person knows, that he staged this. your brain can’t let you admit this, because in your mind, i guess, that’s saying all liberals are bad and all conservatives are good.

He staged this. your beliefs don’t allow you to admit the obvious. time for
new beliefs when you are trapped by such obvious truth.

Protect the narrative at all costs.

You humiliated yourself here.

all by myself? how about what the cops have said, and wht the grand jury did, and the fact that his two black friends confessed to a crime he said was carried out by white trump
supporters?

pathetic.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
no tv, don't take the paper anymore
NPR isn't fixated on it
I have not made it a point to read anything about it and I would have had to
What you wrote there is far more than I know about this, everybody has to be an expert at something.
I also don't care about this issue, it's largely created in the media and Fox apparently loves it, they certainly have you worried about it.
Have fun with it, I see you have also brought Obama into your narrative, all evil derives from him.

"Perhaps" and "likely" you, in your brilliant and authoritative dissection, will find fault with his report. I am sure that you will see exactly what you want to see. So far, Mueller hasn't disputed what Barr has said.

Flynn lied to them and the agents asked him if he was sure of his statement.
They gave him the opportunity to correct it. Why he lied is a open question.

Just what have you heard Mueller say, about anything?

Flynn lied to them and the agents asked him if he was sure of his statement.

Being sure of his statement does not mean he is intentionally lying. You do know the difference between lying and being wrong?

They gave him the opportunity to correct it. Why he lied is a open question.

The FBI investigators didn't think he was lying.

Just what have you heard Mueller say, about anything?

Nothing. That's my point. Mueller jumped in a little while ago to correct what was being said about the investigation. So he has demonstrated that he will correct false impressions or statements about his investigation. So far, no correction or amendment has been made to Barr's synopsis.

So far, Mueller hasn't disputed what Barr has said.
I think Mueller is prohibited from saying anything about his report unless he's called by Congress.

I think Mueller is prohibited from saying anything about his report unless he's called by Congress.

Good point. Albeit a minor one in terms of the discussion twixt Pete and Me.

Good point. Albeit a minor one in terms of the discussion twixt Pete and Me.
Well, it did dismiss your entire post.

I also don't care about this issue, it's largely created in the media and Fox apparently loves it, they certainly have you worried about it.
Have fun with it, I see you have also brought Obama into your narrative, all evil derives from him.

This issue is at the heart of rule of law. Of justice for all. Of equal application of the law. When prosecutors can be persuaded by money, politics, powerful influence, personal prejudice, to subvert the legal process, to give favor to a particular defendant that would not be given to most others, rule of law is replaced by rule of man . . . or of person . . . or of cis, quasi, trans, whatever . . . you get the point. I hope.

And it tickles me that you point out Jim's bringing Obama into this thread when you, as you are wont to do in just about any thread on any subject, bring in Trump and the Russia stuff (and Benghazi) in a thread about the Smullett hoax.

Well, it did dismiss your entire post.

Either you didn't read my entire post, or you're out of your mind.

This issue is at the heart of rule of law. Of justice for all. Of equal application of the law. When prosecutors can be persuaded by money, politics, powerful influence, personal prejudice, to subvert the legal process, to give favor to a particular defendant that would not be given to most others, rule of law is replaced by rule of man . . . or of person . . . or of cis, quasi, trans, whatever . . . you get the point. I hope.

And it tickles me that you point out Jim's bringing Obama into this thread when you, as you are wont to do in just about any thread on any subject, bring in Trump and the Russia stuff (and Benghazi) in a thread about the Smullett hoax.
One is an item that history will likely forget, the other is what will make history.
Perhaps you, like Jim, think Smullet is important beyond this moment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One is an item that history will likely forget, the other is what will make history.
Perhaps you, like Jim, think Smullet is important beyond this moment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think every moment is filled with the infinite range of possibilities that exist in what we refer to as reality. Every moment, for one who is aware and pays attention, contains the answers to all the questions that the human mind can concoct. Every moment is the most basic microcosm of history.

All moments will eventually be forgotten by those who inhabit future moments. That is why every moment is important as an opportunity to discover whatever there is to discover.

If you are waiting for the right moment to begin your search for understanding, you may well remain permanently ignorant.

no tv, don't take the paper anymore
NPR isn't fixated on it
I have not made it a point to read anything about it and I would have had to
What you wrote there is far more than I know about this, everybody has to be an expert at something.
I also don't care about this issue, it's largely created in the media and Fox apparently loves it, they certainly have you worried about it.
Have fun with it, I see you have also brought Obama into your narrative, all evil derives from him.

interesting pete. So in all things that make Trump look bad, you are remarkably well informed, you know all the facts and truths that paint him in a negative light. you post constantly.

Yet here on an issue that makes a liberal look bad, all of a sudden you can’t comment, because you don’t know enough, you don’t have access to the right information.

pete, you are right in many issues in my opinion. but when your beliefs don’t allow you to admit what every sane person knows what happened here, what does that say about your beliefs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is simply being dishonest,NPR has stolen his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is simply being dishonest,NPR has stolen his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
it’s unbelievable....they simply cannot ever say anything that goes against the narrative. Not once, not ever, not on any topic. i’ve never had a dog so blindly and thoughtlessly obedient.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am trying to help but he pushes away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am trying to help but he pushes away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They're as rabid as Jim Jones' followers. It's stupefying. Nohting is questioned, not ever. Nancy Pelosi gives marching orders to stop talking about Russia and pivot to healthcare (which is a winning issue for them), and in the first 24 hours after she said that, every show on CNN and MSNBC has talked about healthcare.

interesting pete. So in all things that make Trump look bad, you are remarkably well informed, you know all the facts and truths that paint him in a negative light. you post constantly.

Yet here on an issue that makes a liberal look bad, all of a sudden you can’t comment, because you don’t know enough, you don’t have access to the right information.

pete, you are right in many issues in my opinion. but when your beliefs don’t allow you to admit what every sane person knows what happened here, what does that say about your beliefs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is simply being dishonest,NPR has stolen his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s unbelievable....they simply cannot ever say anything that goes against the narrative. Not once, not ever, not on any topic. i’ve never had a dog so blindly and thoughtlessly obedient.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am trying to help but he pushes away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They're as rabid as Jim Jones' followers. It's stupefying. Nohting is questioned, not ever. Nancy Pelosi gives marching orders to stop talking about Russia and pivot to healthcare (which is a winning issue for them), and in the first 24 hours after she said that, every show on CNN and MSNBC has talked about healthcare.

Quite the echo chamber you have going here.
Talk about blindly obedient, you think Pelosi made the media look at healthcare.
It was quite likely this tweet:
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Mar 26
The Republican Party will become “The Party of Healthcare!”


Perhaps you can comment on the changes this year to the Rules of Golf.
I find that much more important in my life than a bad actor (pun intended).

pete, say whatever you want. youbarent honest enough to admit what happened here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps you can comment on the changes this year to the Rules of Golf.
I find that much more important in my life than a bad actor (pun intended).

You had once asked me if I was a disciple of Stefan Molyneux. I said no, but I should have also said that I am a disciple of Ben Hogan.

And the rules of golf are sometimes quirky or downright silly. But, and I think Hogan would have agreed, they must be followed to the tee--pun appropriate. If not, the entire scheme of the game could collapse into a disorganized pick up game.

Likewise, when we allow criminal or constitutional law to be unequally or incorrectly applied, the whole rule of law thing is in danger of becoming a tool of the "privileged."

Good to know, though, you and I have something of value (golf) in common.

pete, say whatever you want. youbarent honest enough to admit what happened here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't think it's about honesty, it's about confusion. The idea that a prosecutor would just drop charges on a case with so much national attention is pretty hard to fathom. You'd have to know it would get investigated and you'd be looking for a new job.

I don't think it's about honesty, it's about confusion. The idea that a prosecutor would just drop charges on a case with so much national attention is pretty hard to fathom. You'd have to know it would get investigated and you'd be looking for a new job.

It's fair to be confused about why the charges were dropped. It's not reasonable to be confused about what happened that night. I didn't ask why the charges were dropped, I asked whether or not he thinks Smullett staged this. He said he didn't know any of the facts and therefore couldn't answer. Well he sure feels comfortable opining on all things Trump.

His lawyers are saying now, that maybe it was white guys in blackgace. But HIS FRIENDS CONFESSED. The question of what happened that night, I snot a mystery, no more than whether or not OJ was innocent.

It's fair to be confused about why the charges were dropped. It's not reasonable to be confused about what happened that night. I didn't ask why the charges were dropped, I asked whether or not he thinks Smullett staged this. He said he didn't know any of the facts and therefore couldn't answer. Well he sure feels comfortable opining on all things Trump.

His lawyers are saying now, that maybe it was white guys in blackgace. But HIS FRIENDS CONFESSED. The question of what happened that night, I snot a mystery, no more than whether or not OJ was innocent.

What about the changes in the Rules of Golf?
Don't you care enough about that to spend the time to come up with a reasonable opinion?

I think your paranoia now includes this Smollett fellow, whatever he did very very likely not affect my life.

It's fair to be confused about why the charges were dropped. It's not reasonable to be confused about what happened that night. I didn't ask why the charges were dropped, I asked whether or not he thinks Smullett staged this. He said he didn't know any of the facts and therefore couldn't answer. Well he sure feels comfortable opining on all things Trump.

His lawyers are saying now, that maybe it was white guys in blackgace. But HIS FRIENDS CONFESSED. The question of what happened that night, I snot a mystery, no more than whether or not OJ was innocent.

I finally read an article about Smollett
https://thebulwark.com/donald-and-jussie-birds-of-a-feather/

I finally read an article about Smollett
https://thebulwark.com/donald-and-jussie-birds-of-a-feather/

Thank you for the cut and paste PeteF. You have exposed Trump again,and without the aid of npr.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I finally read an article about Smollett
https://thebulwark.com/donald-and-jussie-birds-of-a-feather/

The symmetry between the two videos is not, as your article states, perfect. Actually, the "symmetry" doesn't exist at all.

The prosecutor in the Smollett case agreed with the charges against Smollett. There was no indecision about Smollett's guilt. But an "alternative to prosecution" was decided. And Smollett was deemed to have done enough community service and forfeiture of his bond to pay for his crime. If the bond had not been forfeited, the charges would not have been dismissed.

The special counsel, Mueller, in the Trump obstruction case, was not a prosecutor, and did not have the power to dismiss. Nor did he even recommend prosecution. His investigation produced evidence that might indicate guilt, but also evidence that is exculpatory. That is, it was it was not dispositive enough to make a conclusion. The DOJ, which has the power to prosecute a case, decided their was not sufficient evidence provided by Mueller to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So there were no charges, no accusation of guilt.

What about the changes in the Rules of Golf?
Don't you care enough about that to spend the time to come up with a reasonable opinion?

I think your paranoia now includes this Smollett fellow, whatever he did very very likely not affect my life.

Did Trump's sexual peccadillos before he became President affect your life?

The symmetry between the two videos is not, as your article states, perfect. Actually, the "symmetry" doesn't exist at all.
I think the symmetry is that both Smullett and Trump claimed total truthfulness and exoneration when in either case non exists.

The symmetry between the two videos is not, as your article states, perfect. Actually, the "symmetry" doesn't exist at all.



Just like most political writing, you need to take it with a grain of salt and understand that it is not reporting. What I found interesting was this sentence and possibly many of us are guilty of this.
"Maybe it’s best not to think too hard about these things. Because if you did, you’d come to the conclusion that American political life is broken and that people who defend one of these men to the hilt while railing against the other—without even a hint of self-awareness—will get exactly the sort of government they deserve."

Did Trump's sexual peccadillos before he became President affect your life?

No, I'm more concerned about what he's done lately.

Here's a couple of things he's done in addition to his Russian peccadillos

He has defended North Korea’s Kim Jong-un against U.S. intelligence that shows Kim is lying about his nuclear programs.

He has defended Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, against American intelligence that exposes the crown prince’s role in the murder of a U.S. resident.

He has sided with Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, against American generals and U.S. law enforcement.

He has declared that the Chinese government is more honorable than the American Democratic Party.

What about the changes in the Rules of Golf?
Don't you care enough about that to spend the time to come up with a reasonable opinion?

I think your paranoia now includes this Smollett fellow, whatever he did very very likely not affect my life.

"What about the changes in the Rules of Golf?"

I have no idea what you are asking. None.

Pete, you were annihilated by my posing a simple, obvious question. That's how flimsy your beliefs are.

I finally read an article about Smollett
https://thebulwark.com/donald-and-jussie-birds-of-a-feather/

I can admit Trump is a disgusting person. Can you admit that Smullett staged the attack?

I think the symmetry is that both Smullett and Trump claimed total truthfulness and exoneration when in either case non exists.

Do you think Smullett staged the attack?

Just like most political writing, you need to take it with a grain of salt and understand that it is not reporting. What I found interesting was this sentence and possibly many of us are guilty of this.

Like "most political writing" your article has a slant in one direction. The emphasis in the article is on Trump and his words. Those words are supposed to show a symmetry with Smollett's words which is supposed to lead to the moral indictment of the supporters of each man as being the cause of a broken American political life.

But it's a red herring symmetry. There is a symmetry in that both Trump and Smollett are men. In that they are both humans. In that they both have arms and legs. And in an endless number of irrelevant ways.

Claiming that the system is broken because of an irrelevant symmetry of defendant's declarations of exoneration is, ultimately, trying to lay blame for a broken system on Trump and his supporters. If Trump had said nothing, the article would not have been written--even though the Smollett case, in and of and wholly in itself would be evidence of a broken system.

Smollett's case being dismissed in spite of overwhelming factual evidence in which even the prosecutor clearly admits the guilt of the defendant is a sign of a broken system. The investigation into charges against Trump in which actual evidence cannot lead to a dispositive conclusion of guilt is perfectly aligned with a system that is working.

Comments of exoneration by the defendants in either case indicate nothing about the integrity of the system. They're just the opinions of Smollett and Trump. You can put whatever spin you want on Trump's and Smollett's words. But there is no symmetry of a broken legal system between both cases.


"Maybe it’s best not to think too hard about these things. Because if you did, you’d come to the conclusion that American political life is broken and that people who defend one of these men to the hilt while railing against the other—without even a hint of self-awareness—will get exactly the sort of government they deserve."

Actually, thinking hard, in depth, about "these things" (e.g. the justice system) leads to the conclusion that in Smollett's case "American political life" is broken, regardless of what Smollett says. And those that support him to the hilt despite his guilt are a sign of that break.

In Trump's case, the justice system does not seem to be broken. There is no dismissal of charges in the face of overwhelming evidence. Quite the contrary. Regardless of what Trump says.

What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge? I don't see a symmetry between the two. I see an attempt to create an equivalence that doesn't exist--merely by noting the similarity of words about exoneration between Trump and Smollett.

The article is an unnecessary and nonfactual equivalence of Trump's case with Smollett's to create the appearance of why American political life is broken, with the slant that Trump and his supporters are at least half of the problem. God knows who the other half is. Certainly not just little ole insignificant Smollett and his few supporters.

The broken American political life is not caused by the trivia in your article. It is only broken if the base that hold's it together is cracked--you know . . . the "C".

Do you think Smullett staged the attack?
That seems to be the most likely scenario.

"What about the changes in the Rules of Golf?"

I have no idea what you are asking. None.

Pete, you were annihilated by my posing a simple, obvious question. That's how flimsy your beliefs are.

What about the changes in the rules of golf is a very simple question if you took the time to learn about golf and the rules.

How could you possibly not know?

You were apparently annihilated by my simple question.

I did read some writing on Smollett that was in something I find interesting and I linked it previously.
Perhaps you missed that, if you want the link, just pedal back a page or so.


"I have two videos for you. In less than three minutes, total, they present the full lunatic tribalism that is American society.

First, here’s President Donald Trump claiming “complete and total exoneration” of all charges in the Mueller investigation.


And now here’s actor Jussie Smollett claiming that he’d been “truthful and consistent” in the face of charges that he’d committed a hate-crime hoax.


The symmetry here is perfect. Absolutely perfect. The only thing we really know from Bob Mueller’s lips is that on the subject of obstruction: “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” That’s eerily similar to the words said by the prosecutor who dismissed the charges against Smollett, saying that he “does not believe [Smollett] is innocent.”

Now you can believe that both of these men have been judged as innocent because the legal system has declined to prosecute them. Or you can believe that both of them can be viewed with suspicion because the official verdict of the legal system is not the last word in actual culpability.

But you cannot claim that one of them must now be treated as totally and completely innocent but that the other is clearly guilty. Which is what most of America seems to be doing.

Including the president of the United States. Barely 72 hours after TOTAL EXONERATION he demanded that federal investigators overturn the verdict of local law enforcement because he was positive that Jussie Smollett had not been, at all, in any way, even partially exonerated.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
FBI & DOJ to review the outrageous Jussie Smollett case in Chicago. It is an embarrassment to our Nation!

131K
6:34 AM - Mar 28, 2019

Though why Trump would trust the FBI—an organization Trump claims is full of “dirty cops” who tried to commit “treason”—to investigate Smollett is beyond me.

Then again, maybe we should take Trump’s criticisms of the FBI seriously, but not literally. Maybe FBI agents are only “dirty” in the same way that Mexico is “paying” for the “concrete wall” on America’s southern border."

:easy:

No, I'm more concerned about what he's done lately.

Good, then we no longer have to hear from you about grabbing pussy, etc.

Here's a couple of things he's done in addition to his Russian peccadillos

He has defended North Korea’s Kim Jong-un against U.S. intelligence that shows Kim is lying about his nuclear programs.

He has defended Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, against American intelligence that exposes the crown prince’s role in the murder of a U.S. resident.

He has sided with Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, against American generals and U.S. law enforcement.

He has declared that the Chinese government is more honorable than the American Democratic Party.

That's all paranoia crap spin. Can you point out how those things have affected your life, as in your reply to Jim "I think your paranoia now includes this Smollett fellow, whatever he did very very likely not affect my life"?

I did read some writing on Smollett that was in something I find interesting and I linked it previously.
Perhaps you missed that, if you want the link, just pedal back a page or so.


:easy:

The article you read is crap. Just pedal back three or four posts to post 196.

Actually, thinking hard, in depth, about "these things" (e.g. the justice system) leads to the conclusion that in Smollett's case "American political life" is broken, regardless of what Smollett says. And those that support him to the hilt despite his guilt are a sign of that break.

In Trump's case, the justice system does not seem to be broken. There is no dismissal of charges in the face of overwhelming evidence. Quite the contrary. Regardless of what Trump says.

What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge? You don't have the information to conclude that yet, do you? I don't see a symmetry between the two. I see an attempt to create an equivalence that doesn't exist--merely by noting the similarity of words about exoneration between Trump and Smollett.

The article is an unnecessary and nonfactual equivalence of Trump's case with Smollett's to create the appearance of why American political life is broken, with the slant that Trump and his supporters are at least half of the problem. God knows who the other half is. Certainly not just little ole insignificant Smollett and his few supporters.

The broken American political life is not caused by the trivia in your article. It is only broken if the base that hold's it together is cracked--you know . . . the "C".
I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.
If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?

Smullett is just like those scam artists that fake injuries in supermarkets hoping to get some $$ from the owners, until they get caught in their lies!

The only difference is that Smullett has got an army of "# ME TOO" and "Black Lives Matters" koolaid drinkers believing he is completely innocent.

The prosecutors probably folded because they were afraid of the potential protests that could arise if a "guilty black man" actually got punished for his actions....

Detbuch: What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge?

You don't have the information to conclude that yet, do you?

Mueller provided the info. He found enough evidence to conclude that Trump did not conspire with the Russians. He didn't find enough evidence to conclude that Trump obstructed justice. And he enumerated a detailed account of how thorough and expensive his investigation was.

I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

The article you linked didn't make the same distinctions.

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.

Do you have the information to conclude that? Any way, Mueller's personal opinion of Trump doesn't interest me. It's irrelevant other than a conversation piece.

If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?

Other than obstruction or conspiracy, what bad stuff about Trump should Mueller have concluded about? If there were other crimes he may have referred them to some criminal court.

What about the changes in the rules of golf is a very simple question if you took the time to learn about golf and the rules.

How could you possibly not know?

You were apparently annihilated by my simple question.

I did read some writing on Smollett that was in something I find interesting and I linked it previously.
Perhaps you missed that, if you want the link, just pedal back a page or so.


"I have two videos for you. In less than three minutes, total, they present the full lunatic tribalism that is American society.

First, here’s President Donald Trump claiming “complete and total exoneration” of all charges in the Mueller investigation.


And now here’s actor Jussie Smollett claiming that he’d been “truthful and consistent” in the face of charges that he’d committed a hate-crime hoax.


The symmetry here is perfect. Absolutely perfect. The only thing we really know from Bob Mueller’s lips is that on the subject of obstruction: “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” That’s eerily similar to the words said by the prosecutor who dismissed the charges against Smollett, saying that he “does not believe [Smollett] is innocent.”

Now you can believe that both of these men have been judged as innocent because the legal system has declined to prosecute them. Or you can believe that both of them can be viewed with suspicion because the official verdict of the legal system is not the last word in actual culpability.

But you cannot claim that one of them must now be treated as totally and completely innocent but that the other is clearly guilty. Which is what most of America seems to be doing.

Including the president of the United States. Barely 72 hours after TOTAL EXONERATION he demanded that federal investigators overturn the verdict of local law enforcement because he was positive that Jussie Smollett had not been, at all, in any way, even partially exonerated.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
FBI & DOJ to review the outrageous Jussie Smollett case in Chicago. It is an embarrassment to our Nation!

131K
6:34 AM - Mar 28, 2019

Though why Trump would trust the FBI—an organization Trump claims is full of “dirty cops” who tried to commit “treason”—to investigate Smollett is beyond me.

Then again, maybe we should take Trump’s criticisms of the FBI seriously, but not literally. Maybe FBI agents are only “dirty” in the same way that Mexico is “paying” for the “concrete wall” on America’s southern border."

:easy:

"How could you possibly not know?

You were apparently annihilated by my simple question."

Explain the question so that I know what you're asking, I'll answer it. Gold changes were not all over the news. This was. You know what happened, you can't bear to say it.

Naturally, with Smullett, you brought it back to Trump. There is no symmetry. There is a ton of evidence that Smullett is guilty, there is no evidence (after a 2 year investigation, on top of other investigations) that Trump is guilty.

Quote:

Detbuch: What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge?

You don't have the information to conclude that yet, do you?

Detbuch: Mueller provided the info. He found enough evidence to conclude that Trump did not conspire with the Russians. He didn't find enough evidence to conclude that Trump obstructed justice. And he enumerated a detailed account of how thorough and expensive his investigation was.

Barr said it did not establish enough evidence to indict anyone with conspiracy or coordination. As to obstruction Mueller neither concluded or exonerated the President. All we have to date is hearsay.

Pete: I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

Detbuch: The article you linked didn't make the same distinctions.

So?

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.

Detbuch: Do you have the information to conclude that? Any way, Mueller's personal opinion of Trump doesn't interest me. It's irrelevant other than a conversation piece.

Only from biographical pieces on both, I find it very interesting

If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?
Other than obstruction or conspiracy, what bad stuff about Trump should Mueller have concluded about? Hard telling, not knowing, purely supposition
If there were other crimes he may have referred them to some criminal court.
And if he found a pattern of behavior, not indictable but that he felt was untenable for a person in that position, what would/could he do?

"How could you possibly not know?

You were apparently annihilated by my simple question."

Explain the question so that I know what you're asking, I'll answer it. Gold changes were not all over the news. This was. You know what happened, you can't bear to say it.

Naturally, with Smullett, you brought it back to Trump. There is no symmetry. There is a ton of evidence that Smullett is guilty, there is no evidence (after a 2 year investigation, on top of other investigations) that Trump is guilty.
Still, all hearsay in both cases.
Smollett along with AOC dominated Faux for several weeks, much more than other media. Perhaps that's where your paranoia emanated from.
Golf rule changes were in lots of stuff I read and far more important and complicated, much more than Smullet or Trump, well maybe not Trump.
I would think you would like golf, some people spend hours arguing about the rules. Then again you would probably find some obscure rule to argue about, instead of play golf.

Quote Barr said it did not establish enough evidence to indict anyone with conspiracy or coordination.

Exactly. If there is not enough evidence to indict, there is no mandate or reason to go further. That's how the law works. Case closed.

As to obstruction Mueller neither concluded or exonerated the President. All we have to date is hearsay.

He did not find enough evidence to make a conclusion. Same as above. Not enough evidence, case closed. If your saying that Mueller's conclusions or lack of them are only to be considered hearsay, then there is no purpose for such an investigation.

Pete: I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

The article you linked didn't make the same distinctions.

So?

So if you disagree with some of your article how much confidence should I have either in you or the article--an article, BTW, which is basically a slanted and misleading peace of political crap to begin with.

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.

Do you have the information to conclude that? Any way, Mueller's personal opinion of Trump doesn't interest me. It's irrelevant other than a conversation piece.

Only from biographical pieces on both, I find it very interesting

Whenever you've shared some biographical or anecdotal information about Trump its either been negative or contradictory. Whereas I have read or seen bio info about him that was quite positive. So I guess that you've either only read one side or just believe what you want to believe. I have read or seen enough biographies to realize that most of them are part or mostly fiction along with slanted contextualization of facts. Comparing such bios of Trump to Mueller would seem more like an entertainment rather than an elucidation. But, whatever floats your boat.

If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?

And if he found a pattern of behavior, not indictable but that he felt was untenable for a person in that position, what would/could he do?

Thankfully, the world does not operate on the basis of what either you or Mueller think is not indictable but somehow untenable. I personally think it would be untenable for a President if he was constantly farting and burping and picking his nose.