placeholder

"Nauta texted another Trump staffer a picture of documents containing classified information that were spewed all over a bathroom floor. 'I opened the door and found this,' he wrote, according to the indictment - and included two photographs of the spilled documents, at least one of which contained classified documents. The indictment states that the specific documents were related to intelligence between the 'Five Eyes' countries." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12179535/Trump-accuses-FBI-STAGING-classified-documents-Mar-Lago.html

It looks like a lot of Christians are going to hell: U.S. Same-Sex Marriage Support Holds at 71% High https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.aspx Still, the majority of weekly churchgoers still subscribe to God's diktat and are probably all that stands between America and His wrath.

Here's a photo of the crowd that turned out: As far as I can see, not a g string or a tutu in sight.. At any rate, any time I might feel nostalgic for the good old days, all I have to do is remind myself of your cretinous, throwback slurs, to remind me why I shouldn't miss those times at all.

It looks like "narcissistic" is joining "woke" as an all purpose word right-wingers use reflexively to characterize people whose beliefs they or actions they disapprove of.

You know, you people took useful words like queer and gay and completely changed the way they're commonly used.. Now you're coming for "mischief" too? This isn't right.

This is Durham's report. The guy who publicly and bizarrely disputed the Justice Dept's inspector general findings and then was unable to come up with any evidence to support his disagreement. As has been repeated repeatedly, the investigation of Trump was not based on the Steele report. Even Durham acknowledged that. And who cares what Durham alleges given his demonstrated bias and incompetence in this matter?

"From the same article: Robert Brulle, a visiting professor of environmental sociology at Brown University who co-authored the research tallying oil spending on ads, said the findings are just the tip of the iceberg. Brulle has previously found that more than $2bn was spent lobbying Congress on climate legislation between 2000 and 2016" As for "your 200 million.year...is just plain guesswork.". It's not mine. It comes from another piece of research that I linked to.

I believe that yellowtail will return to post a link to a valid and credble source to establish his claim that big green has spent billions on playing up global warming. I also believe that Jesus will return any day now.

I, for one, am impressed that you have chosen to come out on this forum.

Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

BAck it up then,

If only,

Now, can you back up your claim that billions are being "spent by the green industry to play global warming up"?

Oil And Gas Giants Spend Millions Lobbying To Block Climate Change Policies [Infographic] Every year, the world's five largest publicly owned oil and gas companies spend approximately $200 million on lobbying designed to control, delay or block binding climate-motivated policy. This has caused problems for governments seeking to implement policies in the wake of the Paris Agreement which are vital in meeting climate change targets. Companies are generally reluctant to disclose such lobbying expenditure and late last week, a report from InfluenceMap used a methodology focusing on the best available records along with intensive research of corporate messaging to gauge their level of influence on initiatives to halt climate change. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/?sh=12379be7c4fb How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spending https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02582-8 As you'll not this graph terminates in 2015. So if you add on the $200 million per year for subsequent years that's almost 5 billion dollars.

I guess you disagree with the old saying that one picture is worth a thousand words. The image I provided actually gave more specific information than the paragraph you cited. And after all, I was only following the suggestion of Richard Smith. Really, your comment ought to have been directed at him since he blamed "food demands" as the chief culprit "People want to blame oil but miss the real issue - it is our 'food demands' which are causing the biggest impact to CO2 in the atmosphere." If anything, what you contributed here mitigates that.

I took your advice https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

You make an excellent point. Just look at the remarkable success of John Durham's investigation. He started out trying to prove that prominent Democrats and the Justice dept had conspired against Trump and ended up with 2 failed prosecutions of persons accused of deceiving the FBI. I bet those Democrats are running scared now.,

Here's a nice summary of the case against Trump from Matthew Sheffield on Twitter: Jack Smith's charging document against Donald Trump systematically dismantles every one of the legal tap dances Trump has trotted out. -He did not secure the documents -He didn't declassify them -He knew he had not declassified them -He showed them to others

A "decrepit old man" who managed to get major legislation passed during his first 2 years. And while I didn't approve of his negotiating over the debt limit. he clearly out-negotiated McCarthy. If that's your idea of decrepit, then it should be considered a compliment.

The tar has been provided by Trump. The Justice Dept just gathered it.

I don't think that's true. Not according to this NY Times article https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/10/us/politics/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-documents.html to bypass paywall: https://archive.ph/rXL95

As I noted in another thread, in a Fox News interview legal expert Jonathan Turley called the indictment "damning". He is one of the very few legal experts who thought Durham had strong cases, who supported Aline Cannon's appointing of a special master, and who thinks that Alvin Bragg's prosecution of Trump is political. Yet when it comes to this case, even he thinks it looks very, very bad for Trump.

Well, according to Jonathan Turley, he should. You may know who Turley is., He's one of the very few legal experts who supported Aline Cannon's decision to appoint a special master. He supported John Durham's investigation and prosecutions. He also believes that the Bragg prosecution of Trump is political. Yet here's what he says about this case: New Trump indictment over documents is a 'whole different ballgame,' says Jonathan Turley "It is an extremely damning indictment." https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-trump-indictment-documents-whole-different-ballgame-jonathan-turley

Yes, you can just walk in there. You think every guest that shows up has been vetted by security agencies? The Secret Service is there to protect Trump and his family. Not to guard documents. Not their function.

Actually, if you read the article further, it says this: "Ms. Noble did not immediately respond to an email seeking clarification of what happened." That said, the NY Times has a subsequent article which does feature the clerk's explanation. It turns out that, in practice, there were a lot less judges available. So the odds were considerably less than 15 to 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/10/us/politics/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-documents.html to bypass paywall: https://archive.ph/rXL95