The reason Trump supporters say that is because Obama got one for being elected, and Clinton got one for North Korea talks.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
The reason Trump supporters say that is because Obama got one for being elected, and Clinton got one for North Korea talks.
"Narrator: He really did not."
West Hollywood give a whore the key to the city, wth.
Like there's no one running a homeless shelter or some charitable organization that is deserving?
The HillVerified account@thehill
House Dems want to hire Parkland students for the summer http://hill.cm/oRA6hrv
A bunch of us got a chuckle in the other thread when our fave mod declared the kids non-partisan.
House Dems want to hire Parkland students for the summer http://hill.cm/oRA6hrv
A bunch of us got a chuckle in the other thread when our fave mod declared the kids non-partisan.
He got 3 Americans home...its more than your dad ever did. That you are more concerned about trying to fund away to feel better about yourself than cheer for America is pathetic.
There is an old joke among criminal defense attorneys that “justice delayed is justice,” a twist of the old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied.” The joke reflects that fact that the defense almost always benefits from the passage of time and it is the prosecution that often pushes for earlier trial debates to deny the defense enough time to absorb and address evidence. That is not the case with Special Counsel Robert Mueller who has asked federal Judge Dabney L. Friedrich to deny a speedy trial motion and delay any trial of 13 Russians and three Russian companies for efforts to influence the 2016 election. The effort reflects problems in Mueller’s matinee case, including the allegation that he has charged a company that did not exist at the time of the alleged offenses.
The speed of the defense, particularly Eric A. Dubelier, a partner with Reed Smith, seems to have take Mueller’s people by some surprise. The defense is demanding to see evidence which Mueller has been keeping closely held in his office. It could be the first serious disclosure of the cards in Mueller’s hand for defendants and potential targets. Thus far the defense is doing an excellent job in setting Mueller’s team back on its heels.
As a general rule, the desire of the defense for a speedy trial should carry the day. The prosecutors control when to issue an indictment. That triggers the Act and the clock ticking. The danger for Mueller is that, if he is unwilling to show the evidence or go to trial, he could face the embarrassing prospect of pulling the indictment. Conversely, if he is not ready, his matinee case could prove a flop in whole or in part with acquittals or hung juries.
If taking them by force means destroying their military by using missiles & planes, OK. But we're never invading NK.
I don't see it that way. I see it as another attempt to play Trump/USA because it's worked in the past. They may or may not learn that won't work this time, but it could take a good while.
Saved 8 whores from russia over the last 3 days
Trump supporters could give an ish whether he gets a Lib country's prize. Might be fun, but it's not the prime goal as it was for O.
Can you detail why Obama deserved one?
Brother Willy. Saving whores from Russia daily. Gotta love it.
Last edited:
Getting a high powered telescope to save even more too
A meeting about racism, held by one race which allowed no other race to attend.
If you had nothing to go on with but the above information, you’d likely picture a klan meeting... and that’s racist... right?
That made me think of this. Woman vanished sunbathing in her bikini, witness is guy on the other side of the river with a telescope...
http://charleyproject.org/case/heather-danyelle-teague
Awan and House Democrats are getting the Hillary treatment. No doubt the Capital Hill source leaking to the lawyer was a Democrat.
Capitol Police Accidentally Gave Evidence To House Hacking Suspect’s Defense Attorney
The Capitol Police turned over a trove of evidence in the alleged Imran Awan House cyberbreach and theft case to the defense attorneys when they were supposed to deliver it to prosecutors instead, according to court documents and a source.
And hours after The Daily Caller News Foundation asked prosecutors about the disclosure, Awan’s lawyer, Gowen, said he had learned of the forthcoming story from a source on Capitol Hill. TheDCNF had not told anyone other than prosecutors about it.
Gowen — a former aide to failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — said he learned of the story through someone on Capitol Hill. “I have been told by my source on the Hill,” he said.
If true, this would imply congressional staff, or possibly even members, are feeding information to the attorney of a hacking suspect.
Republicans have told TheDCNF they’ve been led to believe they must stay out of the investigation. On Thursday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said, “I don’t want to get into the details of a police investigation.”
Democrats, meanwhile, have publicly underscored the importance of cybersecurity, expressing outrage at what they say is President Donald Trump’s involvement with the 2016 hack on the DNC.
Numerous fellow IT aides in the House who say they have knowledge of misconduct involving Awan — and in some cases, his relationship with members — have expressed to TheDCNF reluctance to come forward, citing similar fears. They said they perceive that prosecutors will not pursue the leads vigorously and that the Awans and Democrats will learn about their allegations and become angered.
“I’d do it if the right thing would happen,” one said. “But it’s going to be all risk, no reward … If they actually wanted to pursue this case, they would have approached me.”
The director of investigations for conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, Chris Farrell, said the disclosures are “disgraceful and amateurish. What were the consequences for this misconduct? Who was disciplined or fired?”
Capitol Police’s role appears to be “to bury, constrain and minimize the Awan case” and points to the need for “a legitimate, full investigation by a competent law enforcement agency,” he continued.
The House’s Inspector General — an internationally renowned cybersecurity expert— found that the Awans made “unauthorized access” to House servers, were taking data off the House network and were covering their tracks.
But the investigation now is under the purview of prosecutors, the FBI and Capitol Police.
More than a year later, no one has been charged with anything in the IG reports.
“The only reason you’re not seeing charges is because the Democrats who employed him are not cooperating,” a senior Republican congressional official with direct knowledge of the probe told TheDCNF.
Farrell said “This matter is too serious to be left to political operatives.”
Prosecutors have said they have turned over “voluminous discovery” to Awan and his lawyers. A court filing shows that documents turned over include a copy of the hard drive of a government laptop with the username RepDWS — placing the contents of a government computer in Awan’s hands even though he was banned from the House computer network as a security risk.
It is unclear why prosecutors would give over evidence in the House matter because Awan and Alvi have not been charged with any wrongdoing in the cyber probe. Defendants are entitled to evidence to defend themselves against specific charges in court.
Capitol Police declined to execute search warrants on the Awans’ homes when the chief administrative officer notified the Committee on House Administration in December 2016 that the House Democratic Caucus server — at the time a key piece of evidence in the cybersecurity probe — had disappeared.
Police told Capitol Hill staff in June 2017 that they had no plans to conduct any more interviews – even though many of Awan’scolleagues in House IT told TheDCNF that they believed they had knowledge of wrongdoing but were never approached.
Republicans on Capitol Hillsaid, despite Democrats publicly saying they abhor cyberbreaches such as the DNC hack, prosecutors may be bowing to Democrats’ wishes to avoid a trial at which members of Congress would be forced to testify about their relationship with the Awans and the IG’s allegation many failed to take cybersecurity seriously in their own offices.
An attorney for Imran’s brother, Abid Awan, previously said there was a “shockinglack of IT and hardware security on Capitol Hill,” while another lawyer for Imran alleged that congressmen wanted the Awans to falsify financial documents.
Farrell said the repeated delays in the case indicate that prosecutors may be looking to make it go away as quietly as possible — even if it means accepting a plea deal to far more minor or even unrelated crimes — in order to keep the case out of public court where Democratic congressmen might have to testify.
Kendra Arnold, a lawyer with the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, said: “If he was Joe Smith from Idaho this is not how the prosecution would be proceeding.”
Capitol Police Accidentally Gave Evidence To House Hacking Suspect’s Defense Attorney
The Capitol Police turned over a trove of evidence in the alleged Imran Awan House cyberbreach and theft case to the defense attorneys when they were supposed to deliver it to prosecutors instead, according to court documents and a source.
And hours after The Daily Caller News Foundation asked prosecutors about the disclosure, Awan’s lawyer, Gowen, said he had learned of the forthcoming story from a source on Capitol Hill. TheDCNF had not told anyone other than prosecutors about it.
Gowen — a former aide to failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — said he learned of the story through someone on Capitol Hill. “I have been told by my source on the Hill,” he said.
If true, this would imply congressional staff, or possibly even members, are feeding information to the attorney of a hacking suspect.
Republicans have told TheDCNF they’ve been led to believe they must stay out of the investigation. On Thursday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said, “I don’t want to get into the details of a police investigation.”
Democrats, meanwhile, have publicly underscored the importance of cybersecurity, expressing outrage at what they say is President Donald Trump’s involvement with the 2016 hack on the DNC.
Numerous fellow IT aides in the House who say they have knowledge of misconduct involving Awan — and in some cases, his relationship with members — have expressed to TheDCNF reluctance to come forward, citing similar fears. They said they perceive that prosecutors will not pursue the leads vigorously and that the Awans and Democrats will learn about their allegations and become angered.
“I’d do it if the right thing would happen,” one said. “But it’s going to be all risk, no reward … If they actually wanted to pursue this case, they would have approached me.”
The director of investigations for conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, Chris Farrell, said the disclosures are “disgraceful and amateurish. What were the consequences for this misconduct? Who was disciplined or fired?”
Capitol Police’s role appears to be “to bury, constrain and minimize the Awan case” and points to the need for “a legitimate, full investigation by a competent law enforcement agency,” he continued.
The House’s Inspector General — an internationally renowned cybersecurity expert— found that the Awans made “unauthorized access” to House servers, were taking data off the House network and were covering their tracks.
But the investigation now is under the purview of prosecutors, the FBI and Capitol Police.
More than a year later, no one has been charged with anything in the IG reports.
“The only reason you’re not seeing charges is because the Democrats who employed him are not cooperating,” a senior Republican congressional official with direct knowledge of the probe told TheDCNF.
Farrell said “This matter is too serious to be left to political operatives.”
Prosecutors have said they have turned over “voluminous discovery” to Awan and his lawyers. A court filing shows that documents turned over include a copy of the hard drive of a government laptop with the username RepDWS — placing the contents of a government computer in Awan’s hands even though he was banned from the House computer network as a security risk.
It is unclear why prosecutors would give over evidence in the House matter because Awan and Alvi have not been charged with any wrongdoing in the cyber probe. Defendants are entitled to evidence to defend themselves against specific charges in court.
Capitol Police declined to execute search warrants on the Awans’ homes when the chief administrative officer notified the Committee on House Administration in December 2016 that the House Democratic Caucus server — at the time a key piece of evidence in the cybersecurity probe — had disappeared.
Police told Capitol Hill staff in June 2017 that they had no plans to conduct any more interviews – even though many of Awan’scolleagues in House IT told TheDCNF that they believed they had knowledge of wrongdoing but were never approached.
Republicans on Capitol Hillsaid, despite Democrats publicly saying they abhor cyberbreaches such as the DNC hack, prosecutors may be bowing to Democrats’ wishes to avoid a trial at which members of Congress would be forced to testify about their relationship with the Awans and the IG’s allegation many failed to take cybersecurity seriously in their own offices.
An attorney for Imran’s brother, Abid Awan, previously said there was a “shockinglack of IT and hardware security on Capitol Hill,” while another lawyer for Imran alleged that congressmen wanted the Awans to falsify financial documents.
Farrell said the repeated delays in the case indicate that prosecutors may be looking to make it go away as quietly as possible — even if it means accepting a plea deal to far more minor or even unrelated crimes — in order to keep the case out of public court where Democratic congressmen might have to testify.
Kendra Arnold, a lawyer with the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, said: “If he was Joe Smith from Idaho this is not how the prosecution would be proceeding.”
Since Obama got one every president should and I mean this.
Last edited:
NRA and MAGA forever baby! There is a law in OK that if you enter my air space and I feel you intend to harm me, I can shoot you as long as I can prove it to be true. God, I love conservative states.
The Real Constitutional Crisis
The FBI and Justice Department continue evading congressional oversight.
Democrats and their media allies are again shouting “constitutional crisis,” this time claiming President Trump has waded too far into the Russia investigation. The howls are a diversion from the actual crisis: the Justice Department’s unprecedented contempt for duly elected representatives, and the lasting harm it is doing to law enforcement and to the department’s relationship with Congress.
The conceit of those claiming Mr. Trump has crossed some line in ordering the Justice Department to comply with oversight is that “investigators” are beyond question. We are meant to take them at their word that they did everything appropriately. Never mind that the revelations of warrants and spies and dirty dossiers and biased text messages already show otherwise.
We are told that Mr. Trump cannot be allowed to have any say over the Justice Department’s actions, since this might make him privy to sensitive details about an investigation into himself. We are also told that Congress—a separate branch of government, a primary duty of which is oversight—cannot be allowed to access Justice Department material. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes can’t be trusted to view classified information—something every intelligence chairman has done—since he might blow a source or method, or tip off the president.
That’s a political judgment, but it holds no authority. The Constitution set up Congress to act as a check on the executive branch—and it’s got more than enough cause to do some checking here. Yet the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation have spent a year disrespecting Congress—flouting subpoenas, ignoring requests, hiding witnesses, blacking out information, and leaking accusations.
This intransigence is creating an unprecedented toxicity between law enforcement and Congress, undermining what has long been a cooperative and vital relationship. It is also pushing lawmakers ever closer to holding Justice Department officials in contempt or impeaching them. Congress hasn’t impeached a member of the executive branch (presidents excepted) since the 19th century. Let’s agree such a step would amount to a real crisis. And the pressure to use these tools to get disclosure is growing, as congressional Republicans worry about losing their oversight authority in the midterms, and suspect the Justice Department is stringing them along for that very reason.
Which is why Mr. Trump was right to order that Justice comply with Mr. Nunes’s demands for documents about the alleged FBI spy Stefan Halper and other information related to the catalyst of this investigation. As president, he has a duty to protect the reputation and integrity of the Justice Department—even from its own leaders. Forcing officials to comply with legitimate congressional oversight is far better than sitting back to watch those same officials singe the institution and its relationship with Congress in a flame of impeachment resolutions.
Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end. He can—and should—declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the public see the truth. That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for itself, to “undermine” an investigation. And it would end the Justice Department’s campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to its reputation with the public and with Congress.
The FBI and Justice Department continue evading congressional oversight.
Democrats and their media allies are again shouting “constitutional crisis,” this time claiming President Trump has waded too far into the Russia investigation. The howls are a diversion from the actual crisis: the Justice Department’s unprecedented contempt for duly elected representatives, and the lasting harm it is doing to law enforcement and to the department’s relationship with Congress.
The conceit of those claiming Mr. Trump has crossed some line in ordering the Justice Department to comply with oversight is that “investigators” are beyond question. We are meant to take them at their word that they did everything appropriately. Never mind that the revelations of warrants and spies and dirty dossiers and biased text messages already show otherwise.
We are told that Mr. Trump cannot be allowed to have any say over the Justice Department’s actions, since this might make him privy to sensitive details about an investigation into himself. We are also told that Congress—a separate branch of government, a primary duty of which is oversight—cannot be allowed to access Justice Department material. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes can’t be trusted to view classified information—something every intelligence chairman has done—since he might blow a source or method, or tip off the president.
That’s a political judgment, but it holds no authority. The Constitution set up Congress to act as a check on the executive branch—and it’s got more than enough cause to do some checking here. Yet the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation have spent a year disrespecting Congress—flouting subpoenas, ignoring requests, hiding witnesses, blacking out information, and leaking accusations.
This intransigence is creating an unprecedented toxicity between law enforcement and Congress, undermining what has long been a cooperative and vital relationship. It is also pushing lawmakers ever closer to holding Justice Department officials in contempt or impeaching them. Congress hasn’t impeached a member of the executive branch (presidents excepted) since the 19th century. Let’s agree such a step would amount to a real crisis. And the pressure to use these tools to get disclosure is growing, as congressional Republicans worry about losing their oversight authority in the midterms, and suspect the Justice Department is stringing them along for that very reason.
Which is why Mr. Trump was right to order that Justice comply with Mr. Nunes’s demands for documents about the alleged FBI spy Stefan Halper and other information related to the catalyst of this investigation. As president, he has a duty to protect the reputation and integrity of the Justice Department—even from its own leaders. Forcing officials to comply with legitimate congressional oversight is far better than sitting back to watch those same officials singe the institution and its relationship with Congress in a flame of impeachment resolutions.
Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end. He can—and should—declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the public see the truth. That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for itself, to “undermine” an investigation. And it would end the Justice Department’s campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to its reputation with the public and with Congress.
There are 2.
You are engaging in snark. Which is what hipsters do. The thing is, the poster to which you responded is not joking. Your side actually DOES claim that there are 87 genders....or 75...or 40. Whatever. Your side actually does. This is nothing to snark about. Instead, you should try to defend your team, and explain why there really are 87 genders. Or 75, or 40, or whatever you idiots insist there are.
Yep. No matter what guy promotes his gender as one of the 50 female genders. He will at some point have to get a prostate exam. Ignore it and risk of dying. IDGAF.
I'm not educated at all on that. I can't comment on things I have no clue about.
Sure you can. In fact, that's all you ever do. Commenting on things you have no clue about is your persona. It's your milieu.
I disagree with you on certain topics. If you can't handle that, ain't my problem.
I didn't say I couldn't handle it. In fact, I didn't even criticize it. I merely pointed it out to you. You had no clue what my words meant and yet you still commented on what I said. Thanks for the backup!
Not educated about how many genders there are...says it all really.
gen·der
ˈjendər/
noun
gen·der
ˈjendər/
noun
- 1.
the state of being male or female
You're confused about the number of genders? Jesus. Take a f****** biology class.
Gender lesson; quick and straight to the point. You're welcome.
We will never known for certain, but it has often been suspected that he was nominated for the award simply as a result of being elected. He did nothing as president to deserve the nomination. Besides, the 2009 nominations were open for only 10 days after he became POTUS. I remember reading something to the effect that the Nobel committee was moved to award the prize to nominee Obama on account of a moving speech he made later that year in the Mideast on the subject of, wait for it . . . Islam.
Oh, well . . . even Hitler was nominated for a Nobel prize by, wait for it again . . . a Democrat.
So, yeah . . . Hillary lost a Nobel nomination. The first chick to win it gets one.
Similar threads
