Even if the memo exists, how do we know any of it is truthful? Comey has been shown to be full of shit numerous times. I mean, this clown said Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted because she had no intent.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
As fun as when you were tootin' that horn, 100%, without a doubt, convinced that Hillary was going you win? Be honest.Dis sho is getten fun!
Comey won't testify under oath unless it's proven that there are no tape recordings in the White House.
That's why the Dems are pushing for the release or info on whether there are any tapes.
That's why the Dems are pushing for the release or info on whether there are any tapes.
Not a fan of this. I just read today that liberals targeted and vandalized a GOP member's home, leaving threatening signs in his yard, scaring his wife and children to the point where she (wife) called the police. I say exercise your first ammendment at the proper venue -- town halls, speaking engagements, etc..-- and leave their private lives out of it.
A guy with no discipline and can't be managed combined with an unethical smarmy media = shit show
I agree but it crushes the alt left narrative when a Mariachi band shows up. That is hilarious.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
He's just over 100 days in, give it time. The fact that there are that many reasons to doubt the sanity of the President in this short time proves the point.
I predicted a year so we'll see. Funny how so much we said about Trump is coming to fruition. *golf clap* congrats guys, you won! Captain of the Titanic and worst.president.ever.
The curious rise of the ‘white left’ as a Chinese insult
Meet the Chinese netizens who combine a hatred for the ‘white left’ with a love of US president Donald Trump. If you look at any thread about Trump, Islam or immigration on a Chinese social media platform these days, it’s impossible to avoid encountering the term baizuo (白左), or literally, the ‘white left’.
So what does ‘white left’ mean in the Chinese context, and what’s behind the rise of its (negative) popularity?
A thread on Zhihu, a question-and-answer website said to have a high percentage of active users who are professionals and intellectuals, might serve as a starting point.
Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.
Meet the Chinese netizens who combine a hatred for the ‘white left’ with a love of US president Donald Trump. If you look at any thread about Trump, Islam or immigration on a Chinese social media platform these days, it’s impossible to avoid encountering the term baizuo (白左), or literally, the ‘white left’.
So what does ‘white left’ mean in the Chinese context, and what’s behind the rise of its (negative) popularity?
A thread on Zhihu, a question-and-answer website said to have a high percentage of active users who are professionals and intellectuals, might serve as a starting point.
Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.
Dis sho is getten fun!
3 touchdown lead...or was it 4?
Let me guess, all anonymous, no fact checking, no corroborating, straight to print.
4chan will prolly use that link with modesty and restriaint.
so the issue is over classified documents. And Hillary's server is not an issue. I don't think people understand that a lot of Americans view these news accounts in relevance to what Obama just did. Do you ****ing twits think we forgot about the IRS scandal? Benghazi? Hillary's private server in a BATHROOM!! and you think you're going to impeach trump. You just try it. Please it's on then.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/05/16/should-we-trust-the-trumprussia-coverage/
Fair:
"Simply enough, because however suspicious of Trump I might be, I've gotten to be even more suspicious of anonymously sourced stories about Trump from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and frankly, from all of the legacy media.
Why? Because they've proven to be untrustworthy. T. Becket Adams at the Washington Examiner started a comprehensive list in February, promising to keep updating the list -- after February 18 he stopped and I don't blame him. He probably threw up his hands in disgust. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist has her own list (and some useful hints about any WaPo Trump story).
Circa, a new website I heartily recommend, ran a story on May 12 documenting stories (I started to say "all the stories" but actually I wouldn't want to bet on that) of all the things the legacy media has reported about Trump that were wrong.
It has 23 entries. In a week....
But the upshot of it all is that the Washington Post and New York Times have been wrong so often that they've become inherently unbelievable.
Almost everyone remembers the story of the little boy who cried wolf. What happens if the legacy press actually gets a story that is adequately sourced and points to real malfeasance? Will anyone believe them? Should anyone believe them?
That's the real point of course. Established media has squandered its credibility. When something really bad and noteworthy happens, who will believe them when they report it?
Fair:
"Simply enough, because however suspicious of Trump I might be, I've gotten to be even more suspicious of anonymously sourced stories about Trump from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and frankly, from all of the legacy media.
Why? Because they've proven to be untrustworthy. T. Becket Adams at the Washington Examiner started a comprehensive list in February, promising to keep updating the list -- after February 18 he stopped and I don't blame him. He probably threw up his hands in disgust. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist has her own list (and some useful hints about any WaPo Trump story).
Circa, a new website I heartily recommend, ran a story on May 12 documenting stories (I started to say "all the stories" but actually I wouldn't want to bet on that) of all the things the legacy media has reported about Trump that were wrong.
It has 23 entries. In a week....
But the upshot of it all is that the Washington Post and New York Times have been wrong so often that they've become inherently unbelievable.
Almost everyone remembers the story of the little boy who cried wolf. What happens if the legacy press actually gets a story that is adequately sourced and points to real malfeasance? Will anyone believe them? Should anyone believe them?
That's the real point of course. Established media has squandered its credibility. When something really bad and noteworthy happens, who will believe them when they report it?
Is it? What happens?
No one is standing up for Trump and we are blessed at this point he hasn't said F this you all can fail, and then pack his bags and go to a real country.
What is going on is a complete shit show by a bunch of losers that are completely on the he take and running our great nation in the mud.
The issue is Trump is too God damned stupid to literally go into every federally run office and remove EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. Bulldoze the shit. Get them out. CLeanse the nation of federal workers not under Trump.
Tukk RiversPRO · @TukkRivers
News · 31 minutes · edited
Let's not forget the real motivation - they must get him out before there is another SCOTUS vacancy - rumor has it thats happening soon-hence the full court press
Another SCOTUS appointment will mean 30 years of conservative rulings
They're desperate to get him out
WE WONT LET THEM
News · 31 minutes · edited
Let's not forget the real motivation - they must get him out before there is another SCOTUS vacancy - rumor has it thats happening soon-hence the full court press
Another SCOTUS appointment will mean 30 years of conservative rulings
They're desperate to get him out
WE WONT LET THEM
Another example of Republicans being punked and doing absolutely nothing about it. Two same exact situations, two totally different outcomes. Examples like this are why they have lost the majority of the party to Trump.
Last edited:
Yasss! Only a matter of time before she's doing the splits, for the whole world to see, in the back of the bangbus.
Would love to run into Brushy Bill in a dark alley - i could just kick him off the edge of the world.
Gregg Jarrett graduated from law school at the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1980, and worked as a defense attorney for several years in San Francisco with the firm of Gordon & Rees LLP. He maintains his California bar license and has taught law as an adjunct professor at New York Law School and lectured at other law schools.
Gregg Jarrett: Comey's revenge is a gun without powder
Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump. Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation. Good lawyers do that routinely.
Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation.
Those who don’t know the first thing about the law immediately began hurling words like “obstruction of justice”, “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “impeachment“. Typically, these people don’t know what they don’t know.
Here is what we do know.
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime.
There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do. Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months.
Comey’s memo is being treated as a “smoking gun” only because the media and Democrats, likely prompted by Comey himself, are now peddling it that way.
But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.
Either way, James Comey comes out a loser. No matter. The media will hail him a hero.
After all, he gave them a good story that was better than the truth.
Gregg Jarrett: Comey's revenge is a gun without powder
Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump. Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation. Good lawyers do that routinely.
Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation.
Those who don’t know the first thing about the law immediately began hurling words like “obstruction of justice”, “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “impeachment“. Typically, these people don’t know what they don’t know.
Here is what we do know.
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime.
There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do. Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months.
Comey’s memo is being treated as a “smoking gun” only because the media and Democrats, likely prompted by Comey himself, are now peddling it that way.
But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.
Either way, James Comey comes out a loser. No matter. The media will hail him a hero.
After all, he gave them a good story that was better than the truth.
Minneapolis police arrest man, find trove of weapons
Abdullah Alrifahe faces one count of possession of a pistol without a permit in connection with an incident last Thursday evening.
The complaint says officers found a hand grenade, two rifles, including what appeared to be a loaded AK-47 in the car, as well as large quantities of ammunition, cellphones, computers and what appeared to be parts of drones.
"Bomb squad personnel called to the scene noted that the variety of the ammunition and large quantity of BBs and electronic devices could be used for bomb making," the complaint said.
Abdullah Alrifahe faces one count of possession of a pistol without a permit in connection with an incident last Thursday evening.
The complaint says officers found a hand grenade, two rifles, including what appeared to be a loaded AK-47 in the car, as well as large quantities of ammunition, cellphones, computers and what appeared to be parts of drones.
"Bomb squad personnel called to the scene noted that the variety of the ammunition and large quantity of BBs and electronic devices could be used for bomb making," the complaint said.
I have voted conservative my entire life. What we're seeing now is EXACTLY why people like myself voted for Trump: Both political sides are ganging up on him...He doesn't play the game according to the rules (rules they developed to protect their own interests). Granted, he has little tact. He's not politically correct or maybe even astute (of course "astute" would mean he acts in accord with previously accepted practice). The reason I voted for him is because he attacks the system....both sides of it....and now that the light has been shed on how corrupt the system is, we see the roaches scrambling.
I see King cuck Kasich and bernie had a joint town hall last night. What a joke. I hope Kasich never gets another vote
Manning released from prison this morning. Will return to active duty, allowing her to collect military benefits paid for by taxpayers.
It sounds like some people are still stuck at Step 1, but it seems this morning we're getting to a hybrid Step 1/4 for some. Now anonymous sources are saying that Comey didn't document conversations with Obama because he trusted him. Comey didn't trust Trump. Per anonymous sources who say they know Comey.
Still no word from James Comey who has never shied away from a camera in the past.
That should blow the left's collective minds.
Do they claim Putin would have doctored the transcript before they get to see it because he's a Trump ally? But then what happens if there is some sort of inappropriate information? Then do they say they were wrong and Putin is trustworthy?
Can the left find out if this transcript is actually damaging to Trump before asking for its release? Or will they go all in on Putin is a liar, or conversely the transcript is valid?
What a time to be alive!!!!!
Putin said the media frenzy was political schizophrenia. So no way that transcript has anything damaging.
Which means the msm will never take him up on that offer.
Theyre not interested in fact. Theyre interesred in a story
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Sean "Diddy" Combs lawyer quits his case.
- Latest: Glenn's take
