placeholder

Isn't it true that Trump actually criticized McCarthyi for opposing the appointment of alternatives to those 2 congressmen? Trump criticizes McCarthy for pulling Republicans from Jan. 6 panel “I think in retrospect (McCarthy should’ve put Republicans on) to just have a voice,” the former president continued. “The Republicans don’t have a voice. They don’t even have anything to say.” https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2022/06/22/trump-criticizes-kevin-mccarthy-for-pulling-republicans-from-jan--6-panel "Such tremendous lies and innuendo took place yesterday at the Unselect Committee on January 6th," Trump said Wednesday on his social media platform, Truth Social. "You will never get the truth when you have biased and hateful witnesses who are allowed to go on and on without even the slightest cross examination. Republicans should be allowed representation!!!" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/trump-fumes-republicans-ignore-jan-6-panel-rcna34843

What you don't note is that Trump wanted the National Guard there to protect the demonstrators. Trump asked for troops to do 'whatever was necessary' to protect demonstrators who went on to storm the Capitol President Donald Trump asked for National Guard troops to be deployed to protect his supporters at the rally on January 6 that culminated in hundreds of those supporters violently storming the Capitol, his former acting defense secretary told lawmakers on Wednesday. Christopher Miller told the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Wednesday that he held a meeting with Trump on January 3, three days before the violent siege in Washington, DC, which resulted in at least five fatalities. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wanted-troops-to-protect-supporters-at-capitol-says-miller-2021-5 And the truth of Miller's statement is obvious: when it turned out that it was not the demonstrators but rather Congress that was being threatened, Trump sat on his hands and did nothing. Not only that, he actually lied that he wasn't watching the event live as it unfolded on TV but rather was in meetings despite the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses.

And Durham's probe was created to question Horowitz's conclusion. It came up empty.

I think I have a great greeting card idea suggested by your post. Congratulating people for ceasing to behave badly. Like one for husbands who stop beating their wives.

First off, it was Barr and Durham who disagreed with Horowitz about the motivation of the FBI in conducting this case. Durham quite explicitly disagreed with Horowitz finding after he had been apppointed. Which was unprecedented? So what has Durham come up with? That a few people misled the FBI. The opposite of what Barr had hoped to prove in appointing Durham. And one of the defendants has already been acquitted and it doesn't look good for the case against the other. And Peter Strzok was on the special team that was investigating Trump during the campagin leading up to the election. Yet, somehow, news of the investigation never leaked to the media. Got a plausible explanation for that? Because it's really difficult to leak info in D.C.?

Well, it's certainly the case that the one person we know who had been trying hardest to stop Elon Musk from buying "the digital town square" is Elon Musk himself. Despite the fact that the case against his reneging is very strong. It's still not clear whether or not he will go through with it.

It's Pelosi who has the rage problem based on one incident? We have multiple reports from eyewitnesses about the ragings of Trump. And lots of torn-up documents subsequently taped together also support their contentions.

You would think from the way Nancy Pelosi reacted that Trump's incitement was putting her life and the life of others in danger. Fortunately, he proved her wrong by his prompt call for the National Guard to intervene. Also, to be fair, he claims he was at meetings the whole time this was going on and didn't know what was happening in the vicinity of the Capitol. And why should we distrust his claim even though there are multiple eyewitnesses that he was glued to the TV reporting on the situation? Nancy Pelosi was being so unfair!

Well, to follow your logic, if the goal is to stop Trump from running again, the stronger the case is, the better the chance at success. The more careful and complete the DoJ is in building its case, the more likely they are to be able to convict. So why hurriy?

Which reminds me of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

So, in your professional judgement, the DoJ simply ought to have pressed charges before carefully going through the almost 12,000 documents that were recovered? And they should disregard dept. policy which stipulates no prosecutions with political ramifiaction within 50 days of an election? What don't you understand about the fact that very conservative judges ruled that Trump has no claim on documents marked classified?

As I recall, you're a supporter of Bernie who also celebrated theTrump's nomination of Supreme Court justices who are very anti labor and very pro corporattion. Give it up already.

"The Republican Study Committee, the largest group of House Republicans, released a budget plan in June that called on lawmakers to gradually raise the Medicare age of eligibility to 67 and the Social Security eligibility to 70 before indexing both to life expectancy. It backed withholding payments to those who retired early and had earnings over a certain limit. And it endorsed the consideration of options to reduce payroll taxes that fund Social Security and redirect them to private alternatives. It also urged lawmakers to “phase-in an increase in means testing” for Medicare." https://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-retirement-benefits-for-younger-americans-2022-3 And keep in mind that the Republicans tried this before in 2011. And in 2005 George Bush decided he had political capital and tried to use it to privatize Social Security The same people who consistently vote to slash govt revenue then raise alarms about deficits. It reminds me of the old joke about a son who murders his parents and then throws himiself upon the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.

As I posted earlier Bobulinski made allegations about the Bidens that he claims were supported by data in 3 mobile phones. Reporters from Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal were given access to those phones. They found nothing that tied Joe Biden to any of Bobulinski's allegations. As for banks flagging transactions, by itself that means very little. It's not uncommon where large amounts of cash are transferred. Banks do this to protect themselves from charges of abetting money laundering.

But the UK that Scotland voted to remain in was a member of the EU. If UK membership in the EU had been a major issue at the time that would have been a different. But it wasn't. A huge change like Brexit entitles the Scots to another vote.

Scotland voted to stay in a UK that was a member of the EU. I don't think Scots signed on for this. They certainly didn't support Brexit at the polls..

It takes very little digging to expose your comments for the BS that they are: Rick Scott Can’t Even Get Fox News to Buy His Bu1lsh*t REPUBLICAN SEN. RICK Scott couldn’t convince Fox News host John Roberts to buy his ridiculous 11 point “Plan to Rescue America,” which includes proposals to force all Americans to pay income tax, sunset all federal legislation within five years, and complete the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico to name it after former President Donald Trump... Roberts continued, “So, that would raise taxes on half of Americans and potentially sunset programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Why would you propose something like that in an election year?” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/rick-scott-fox-news-taxes-medicare-social-security-1328178/ Sen. Mitt Romney suggests he'd back cutting retirement benefits for younger Americans Romney suggested he would favor cutting retirement benefits for younger Americans to address the debt. He warned the US could find itself in "a heap of trouble" if it didn't take action. Calls to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits haven't faded entirely among Republicans. https://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-retirement-benefits-for-younger-americans-2022-3 Ron Johnson calls for annual approval of Social Security, Medicare funding Republican US Senator says mandatory funding of benefits drives up federal deficit https://www.wpr.org/ron-johnson-calls-annual-approval-social-security-medicare-funding

Unsurprisingly, with you this is an article of faith. Amazing how it coincides with your personal convictions.

If the Democrats are smart, they'll campaign on this Republican plan.

These passages are based on a lie. As the Inspector General of the Justice Dept confirmed, the investigation was not initiated or based on the Steele Dossier. As for the investigation being based on Trump hating human sources, that is again a falsehood. As for offering Steele 1 million dollars, Steele explicitly noted that in his his report that it contained unconfirmed rumors and chatter. And finally, on the matter of whether Trump collaborated with the Russians, Mueller in his report listed 10 possible counts of obstruction of justice violations including witness tampering in the case of Manafort, a massive tax dodger whom Trump pardoned after giving out hints that he would do just that. There has never been a President who pardoned so many persons who might have been potential witnesses against him. The power of the pardon was granted to Presidents in order for them to undo injustices, not to create them. And it looks like Durham's case against Danchenko isn't going well at all as LosLobo's post with links shows.. Keep in mind that when Barr launched the Durham investigation, after a previous one went nowhere, he and Durham were both insinuating that the Justice Dept had maliciously investigated Trump. So far one very low level line lawyer was convicted on a minor charge based on evidence brought by IG Horowitz. Durham's first prosecution failed big time. So far, it doesn't like good for the current one either. And it's just weird that you think a House and/or Senate committee are going to find out things that Durham couldn't.

And 2 of the 3 judges on the panel are very conservative appointees of Trump.

Truly bizarre use of scare quotes. The panel from the 11 circuit court has already ruled that there is no way the classified documents -- even if they have already been declassified -- could count as Trump's personal property. So that is prime facie evidence of a crime since he had government documents illegally in his possession.

Actually, the Russian Federation's membership was terminated in April in response to the invasion of Ukraine.

Not even Clarence Thomas could find a way to support such empty legal maneuvering.

Sure, the boxes that were locked up in a storage area at the insistence of NARA could have contained anything. It was likely these were Secret Santa boxes and the National Archives just wanted these surprises to be protected until Xmas! What a bunch of party animals they are.