|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 21 2020 00:34 Simberto wrote:
Would you not agree that a lot of the stuff Trump does looks pretty criminal, or at least as if it should be criminal if it isn't?
You use criminalize in some weird way that indirectly implies that Trump isn't criminal, and even suggesting that he might be would be wrong. I think that a lot of the stuff which comes up surrounding Trump sounds as if it might be criminal.
Like paying 750$ in taxes as a self-proclaimed billionaire. Or threatening people to stop investigations into your possible wrongdoings. Or just ignoring any conflicts of interest between being president and running a business yourself. Or constantly lying about everything.
This pretty much proves my point, you bring up a laundry list of things that aren't crimes or that are just media clickbait misinfo and then say "these are crimes."
|
On October 21 2020 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 21 2020 01:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2020 01:01 Nevuk wrote:On October 21 2020 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2020 23:40 Nevuk wrote:Glenn Greenwald throwing Reality Winner to the dogs also makes me not trust anything he says, on any topic, ever. A journalist giving up their source like that makes them not a journalist. Also, 50 former intel officers have issued a joint letter condemning the Hunter Biden thing as either russian disinfo or provided by Russia. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 That seems like an important distinction. If it's disinfo like the Hillary is literally the devil memes that's one thing. If it is a real scandal that Russia exposed, that's entirely different. Obviously still a two party fptp system, so short of eating babies on live TV at the debate, Biden supporters will vote for him regardless. Also this quote gives me the impression this was a clickbait appeal to authority. “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” The issue is that Russia has a history of providing real emails mixed with fake emails. And yes, no definitive evidence, but when basically every security and IT expert is saying that there are clear problematic signs, there's good reason to discount it out of hand, as actual reporters (even at the paper that ran the story and fox news) have done. Additionally, there's not really even any alleged underlying scandal. Burisma certainly tried to pay Hunter Biden in order to influence Joe Biden (there's no actual evidence of this either, but we know it from common sense as why else would they have paid him?), but it doesn't appear to have worked at all. The worst allegation in the emails so far is that Hunter introduced someone to Joe. It appears to literally just be an effort to get the words "Biden Emails" in the headlines to help Trump. I remember hearing all that about the Democrat/media emails we saw in 2016. Also the whole "but did they get the influence they paid for?" defense of the Clinton foundation (which has all but collapsed with her prospects at the presidency dashed). Ehh it's clearly different. The Clinton Foundation was directly run by the Clintons (including Hillary from 13-15), the scales of money we're talking about are very different (tens of millions vs <200$k), and we can easily see that Hunter has never really had influence over Joe. Come on, would you trust someone your crackhead son recommended to you? Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50. I know it's different. It's just that Democrats refused to acknowledge the issues with the emails or the Clinton Foundation so this is not going to break through to them regardless of whether the worst version is true or not.
I saw plenty of people (especially journalists) saying that the Clinton Foundation was a terrible idea (especially Hillary being involved in it for 2-3 years before running it). It's not illegal, it just looks bad and is definitely questionable.
If you mean the DNC or the average democratic politician didn't say it, they aren't going to say that. That's the disadvantage of partisan politics and the same reason why the RNC is jumping onto swords for Trump.
Obama's best move was honestly this simple rule he had : don't do anything that could even hint at the appearance of impropriety. It confused his staff initially, but I can't imagine how awful the Obama presidency would be if he had the same levels of concern as the Clinton's for appearance of ethical violations.
On October 21 2020 01:40 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 00:34 Simberto wrote:
Would you not agree that a lot of the stuff Trump does looks pretty criminal, or at least as if it should be criminal if it isn't?
You use criminalize in some weird way that indirectly implies that Trump isn't criminal, and even suggesting that he might be would be wrong. I think that a lot of the stuff which comes up surrounding Trump sounds as if it might be criminal.
Like paying 750$ in taxes as a self-proclaimed billionaire. Or threatening people to stop investigations into your possible wrongdoings. Or just ignoring any conflicts of interest between being president and running a business yourself. Or constantly lying about everything. This pretty much proves my point, you bring up a laundry list of things that aren't crimes or that are just media clickbait misinfo and then say "these are crimes."
Sure. Let's assume that non of the things Trump has done are crimes (even though he's literally in Michael Cohen's indictment).
Just because you don't think something should be a crime doesn't mean it ISN'T a crime.
He's definitely surrounded by criminals, though.
His past FOUR campaign managers have all been charged with crimes. Manafort(conspiracy against the united states and many other felonies), Lewandowski (assaulted a reporter), Bannon (defrauded GOP donors), Parscale (domestic violence against his wife).
And he's still surrounded by them for one simple reason : his foundation (run by him and his children) was committing fraud and his children had to take court ordered classes on how not to defraud people.
Though not found guilty in criminal court (as there's been no charges brought), it was dissolved in civil court and the foundation admitted to some crimes on the foundation's tax forms for 2015.
IRS Form 990 for 2015 that it had, in previous years, engaged in self-dealing and had transferred "income or assets to a disqualified persons" (which could be Trump, a family member, or a Trump-owned business)
|
On October 21 2020 01:57 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 21 2020 01:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2020 01:01 Nevuk wrote:On October 21 2020 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2020 23:40 Nevuk wrote:Glenn Greenwald throwing Reality Winner to the dogs also makes me not trust anything he says, on any topic, ever. A journalist giving up their source like that makes them not a journalist. Also, 50 former intel officers have issued a joint letter condemning the Hunter Biden thing as either russian disinfo or provided by Russia. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 That seems like an important distinction. If it's disinfo like the Hillary is literally the devil memes that's one thing. If it is a real scandal that Russia exposed, that's entirely different. Obviously still a two party fptp system, so short of eating babies on live TV at the debate, Biden supporters will vote for him regardless. Also this quote gives me the impression this was a clickbait appeal to authority. “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” The issue is that Russia has a history of providing real emails mixed with fake emails. And yes, no definitive evidence, but when basically every security and IT expert is saying that there are clear problematic signs, there's good reason to discount it out of hand, as actual reporters (even at the paper that ran the story and fox news) have done. Additionally, there's not really even any alleged underlying scandal. Burisma certainly tried to pay Hunter Biden in order to influence Joe Biden (there's no actual evidence of this either, but we know it from common sense as why else would they have paid him?), but it doesn't appear to have worked at all. The worst allegation in the emails so far is that Hunter introduced someone to Joe. It appears to literally just be an effort to get the words "Biden Emails" in the headlines to help Trump. I remember hearing all that about the Democrat/media emails we saw in 2016. Also the whole "but did they get the influence they paid for?" defense of the Clinton foundation (which has all but collapsed with her prospects at the presidency dashed). Ehh it's clearly different. The Clinton Foundation was directly run by the Clintons (including Hillary from 13-15), the scales of money we're talking about are very different (tens of millions vs <200$k), and we can easily see that Hunter has never really had influence over Joe. Come on, would you trust someone your crackhead son recommended to you? Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50. I know it's different. It's just that Democrats refused to acknowledge the issues with the emails or the Clinton Foundation so this is not going to break through to them regardless of whether the worst version is true or not. I saw plenty of people (especially journalists) saying that the Clinton Foundation was a terrible idea (especially Hillary being involved in it for 2-3 years before running it). It's not illegal, it just looks bad and is definitely questionable. If you mean the DNC or the average democratic politician didn't say it, they aren't going to say that. That's the disadvantage of partisan politics and the same reason why the RNC is jumping onto swords for Trump. Obama's best move was honestly this simple rule he had : don't do anything that could even hint at the appearance of impropriety. It confused his staff initially, but I can't imagine how awful the Obama presidency would be if he had the same levels of concern as the Clinton's for appearance of ethical violations.
I don't know who or what you're referring to with "people (especially journalists)" saying "the Clinton Foundation was a terrible idea" but the issue is that it was clearly raking in money hand over fist to buy influence and access and once that wasn't for sale (or worth much anyway) the revenue collapsed.
|
On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:
Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50.
The way I see it, all the stuff around Hunter is clearly profiteering off parental connections in the same way that the children of rich and/or well-connected people always do. Democrats would not be well-served to write it off as being nothing, because it's genuinely foul play that people should look down upon. They won't, but what's new? I don't know that it needs to be any more complicated than that, though.
These days, any bad actors are acceptable as long as they are at least marginally better than Trump, so by that standard this probably doesn't matter.
|
On October 21 2020 02:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:
Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50. The way I see it, all the stuff around Hunter is clearly profiteering off parental connections in the same way that the children of rich and/or well-connected people always do. Democrats would not be well-served to write it off as being nothing, because it's genuinely foul play that people should look down upon. They won't, but what's new? I don't know that it needs to be any more complicated than that, though. These days, any bad actors are acceptable as long as they are at least marginally better than Trump, so by that standard this probably doesn't matter.
It is foul play that Joe Biden can do nothing to prevent. The fact that Hunter Biden has an easy life profiting off of his father's name is only a bad thing if Joe Biden is actively encouraging it or participating in it. If we see Biden saying "Give my son this awesome job and I'll relieve sanctions", that's an entirely different story.
|
On October 21 2020 02:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:
Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50. The way I see it, all the stuff around Hunter is clearly profiteering off parental connections in the same way that the children of rich and/or well-connected people always do. Democrats would not be well-served to write it off as being nothing, because it's genuinely foul play that people should look down upon. They won't, but what's new? I don't know that it needs to be any more complicated than that, though. These days, any bad actors are acceptable as long as they are at least marginally better than Trump, so by that standard this probably doesn't matter.
Pretty much this. It's also part of the problem Democrats have generally. They couldn't impeach Trump on a lot of the stuff he rightfully should have been impeached for because of their own (less brazen) roles in the same type of schemes.
Trump rose to fame, fortune, and power amid the 'normalcy' everyone is so desperate to have Biden take us back to.
EDIT: Democrats can't give Hunter's bribe taking (whether they got what they paid for or not) any legs because undoubtedly there are examples of much worse throughout Democrats in the House and Senate.
|
Massive antitrust suit was just filed against google by DoJ and 11 states (all red, but some have democratic AGs who had to be involved). Good thing, but probably for the wrong reasons from many involved. Barr reportedly rushed this through to get it in before the election.
DOJ statement
Apple has not developed and does not offer its own general search engine. Under the current agreement between Apple and Google, which has a multi-year term, Apple must make Google’s search engine the default for Safari, and use Google for Siri and Spotlight in response to general search queries. In exchange for this privileged access to Apple’s massive consumer base, Google pays Apple billions of dollars in advertising revenue each year, with public estimates ranging around $8–12 billion. The revenues Google shares with Apple make up approximately 15–20 percent of Apple’s worldwide net income.
Although it is possible to change the search default on Safari from Google to a competing general search engine, few people do, making Google the de facto exclusive general search engine. That is why Google pays Apple billions on a yearly basis for default status. Indeed, Google’s documents recognize that “Safari default is a significant revenue channel” and that losing the deal would fundamentally harm Google’s bottom line. Thus, Google views the prospect of losing default status on Apple devices as a “Code Red” scenario. In short, Google pays Apple billions to be the default search provider, in part, because Google knows the agreement increases the company’s valuable scale; this simultaneously denies that scale to rivals.
Filing and full story at
https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-dojs-antitrust-suit-against-google-is-a-full-frontal-attack-on-big-tech/
|
Yeah that's an all splash announcement; not only can anti-trust suits take years to complete, many of the most talented corporate litigators at DoJ are long gone. Perhaps next administration? 
|
On October 21 2020 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 02:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:
Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50. The way I see it, all the stuff around Hunter is clearly profiteering off parental connections in the same way that the children of rich and/or well-connected people always do. Democrats would not be well-served to write it off as being nothing, because it's genuinely foul play that people should look down upon. They won't, but what's new? I don't know that it needs to be any more complicated than that, though. These days, any bad actors are acceptable as long as they are at least marginally better than Trump, so by that standard this probably doesn't matter. Pretty much this. It's also part of the problem Democrats have generally. They couldn't impeach Trump on a lot of the stuff he rightfully should have been impeached for because of their own (less brazen) roles in the same type of schemes. Trump rose to fame, fortune, and power amid the 'normalcy' everyone is so desperate to have Biden take us back to. EDIT: Democrats can't give Hunter's bribe taking (whether they got what they paid for or not) any legs because undoubtedly there are examples of much worse throughout Democrats in the House and Senate.
How do you stop children from profiting of the relations of their parents ?
|
On October 21 2020 02:40 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2020 02:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:
Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50. The way I see it, all the stuff around Hunter is clearly profiteering off parental connections in the same way that the children of rich and/or well-connected people always do. Democrats would not be well-served to write it off as being nothing, because it's genuinely foul play that people should look down upon. They won't, but what's new? I don't know that it needs to be any more complicated than that, though. These days, any bad actors are acceptable as long as they are at least marginally better than Trump, so by that standard this probably doesn't matter. Pretty much this. It's also part of the problem Democrats have generally. They couldn't impeach Trump on a lot of the stuff he rightfully should have been impeached for because of their own (less brazen) roles in the same type of schemes. Trump rose to fame, fortune, and power amid the 'normalcy' everyone is so desperate to have Biden take us back to. EDIT: Democrats can't give Hunter's bribe taking (whether they got what they paid for or not) any legs because undoubtedly there are examples of much worse throughout Democrats in the House and Senate. How do you stop children from profiting of the relations of their parents ?
By the parents declining to grant access to themselves to their children's business partners.
|
On October 21 2020 00:43 Sent. wrote:
If the tax system is poorly organised it's possible for a billionaire to pay 750$ in taxes without being a criminal.
This is true, but what chance is there to reform that system when the head of government routinely fires inspectors generals to be replaced with unqualified loyalists, and constantly attempts to erode power of the legislature, which itself does nothing but protect and enable him. He also proudly and openly benefits from the faulty tax system. If it was hard to change it before, it will be impossible under this administration.
|
On October 21 2020 02:55 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 02:40 Erasme wrote:On October 21 2020 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2020 02:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:
Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50. The way I see it, all the stuff around Hunter is clearly profiteering off parental connections in the same way that the children of rich and/or well-connected people always do. Democrats would not be well-served to write it off as being nothing, because it's genuinely foul play that people should look down upon. They won't, but what's new? I don't know that it needs to be any more complicated than that, though. These days, any bad actors are acceptable as long as they are at least marginally better than Trump, so by that standard this probably doesn't matter. Pretty much this. It's also part of the problem Democrats have generally. They couldn't impeach Trump on a lot of the stuff he rightfully should have been impeached for because of their own (less brazen) roles in the same type of schemes. Trump rose to fame, fortune, and power amid the 'normalcy' everyone is so desperate to have Biden take us back to. EDIT: Democrats can't give Hunter's bribe taking (whether they got what they paid for or not) any legs because undoubtedly there are examples of much worse throughout Democrats in the House and Senate. How do you stop children from profiting of the relations of their parents ? By the parents declining to grant access to themselves to their children's business partners. https://twitter.com/peterschweizer/status/1318598326493827074
Sure, does that include friends ? Family ? You do realize i'm not talking only about the very rich.
Your answer also has nothing to do with my question since the situation i'm describing would be Joe Biden helping Hunter find a job.
Also, can you stop posting breitbart news here ? Only you seems to think breitbart is to be trusted.
|
|
|
On October 21 2020 03:00 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 02:55 Doodsmack wrote:On October 21 2020 02:40 Erasme wrote:On October 21 2020 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2020 02:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:
Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50. The way I see it, all the stuff around Hunter is clearly profiteering off parental connections in the same way that the children of rich and/or well-connected people always do. Democrats would not be well-served to write it off as being nothing, because it's genuinely foul play that people should look down upon. They won't, but what's new? I don't know that it needs to be any more complicated than that, though. These days, any bad actors are acceptable as long as they are at least marginally better than Trump, so by that standard this probably doesn't matter. Pretty much this. It's also part of the problem Democrats have generally. They couldn't impeach Trump on a lot of the stuff he rightfully should have been impeached for because of their own (less brazen) roles in the same type of schemes. Trump rose to fame, fortune, and power amid the 'normalcy' everyone is so desperate to have Biden take us back to. EDIT: Democrats can't give Hunter's bribe taking (whether they got what they paid for or not) any legs because undoubtedly there are examples of much worse throughout Democrats in the House and Senate. How do you stop children from profiting of the relations of their parents ? By the parents declining to grant access to themselves to their children's business partners. https://twitter.com/peterschweizer/status/1318598326493827074 Sure, does that include friends ? Family ? You do realize i'm not talking only about the very rich. Your answer also has nothing to do with my question since the situation i'm describing would be Joe Biden helping Hunter find a job. Also, can you stop posting breitbart news here ? Only you seems to think breitbart is to be trusted.
Your question was very simple and the answer is directly responsive. As for Breitbart, do you contend that the picture is photoshopped or that the author is wrong about who is in the picture?
|
Brietbart, the site that has a black crime section? You don't get why people don't like or trust them?
|
On October 21 2020 03:11 Nevuk wrote:
Brietbart, the site that has a black crime section? You don't get why people don't like or trust them?
Seriously they do?
Jesus Christ......
|
On October 21 2020 03:08 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 03:00 Erasme wrote:On October 21 2020 02:55 Doodsmack wrote:On October 21 2020 02:40 Erasme wrote:On October 21 2020 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2020 02:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:
Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50. The way I see it, all the stuff around Hunter is clearly profiteering off parental connections in the same way that the children of rich and/or well-connected people always do. Democrats would not be well-served to write it off as being nothing, because it's genuinely foul play that people should look down upon. They won't, but what's new? I don't know that it needs to be any more complicated than that, though. These days, any bad actors are acceptable as long as they are at least marginally better than Trump, so by that standard this probably doesn't matter. Pretty much this. It's also part of the problem Democrats have generally. They couldn't impeach Trump on a lot of the stuff he rightfully should have been impeached for because of their own (less brazen) roles in the same type of schemes. Trump rose to fame, fortune, and power amid the 'normalcy' everyone is so desperate to have Biden take us back to. EDIT: Democrats can't give Hunter's bribe taking (whether they got what they paid for or not) any legs because undoubtedly there are examples of much worse throughout Democrats in the House and Senate. How do you stop children from profiting of the relations of their parents ? By the parents declining to grant access to themselves to their children's business partners. https://twitter.com/peterschweizer/status/1318598326493827074 Sure, does that include friends ? Family ? You do realize i'm not talking only about the very rich. Your answer also has nothing to do with my question since the situation i'm describing would be Joe Biden helping Hunter find a job. Also, can you stop posting breitbart news here ? Only you seems to think breitbart is to be trusted. Your question was very simple and the answer is directly responsive. As for Breitbart, do you contend that the picture is photoshopped or that the author is wrong about who is in the picture?
Apparently it wasn't. Let's say Joe Biden talks to his friends to have his son employed. There is no quid pro quo beyond that. No promises of influence. Do you find it anormal ?
|
On October 21 2020 03:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 03:11 Nevuk wrote:
Brietbart, the site that has a black crime section? You don't get why people don't like or trust them? Seriously they do? Jesus Christ......
Pretty sure he's making that up.
|
|
|
On October 20 2020 23:25 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2020 14:11 Mazer wrote:On October 20 2020 12:59 Doodsmack wrote:On October 20 2020 12:35 Mazer wrote:On October 20 2020 12:22 Doodsmack wrote:On October 20 2020 11:47 Mazer wrote:On October 20 2020 11:30 Doodsmack wrote:On October 20 2020 11:16 Mazer wrote:On October 20 2020 11:02 NewSunshine wrote:
So, let me continue to try to get your shit straight. Trump supporters endlessly and blindly following him, despite his avalanche of illegal and otherwise highly immoral acts as president, no problems here. People suggesting the Hunter Biden story may just be a bunch of crap? "YoU mUsT hAvE lImItS". Trump and his crowd continually blaming everything wrong with the US on Mexico and China? Nothing to see here. Wondering if a story which no major outlet - even Fox - wants to run with might be a ploy by Russians, who absolutely would do and have done shit like this, suddenly liberals are collectively deranged.
You're lost, man. Get a grip. Worst part is tweet quoting Glenn Greenwald in an attempt to continue to downplay Russian influence: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/10/18/steve-bannon-guccifer-2-0-glenn-greenwald-and-me-how-glenn-greenwald-defends-smear-artist-cowards/Good read. Empty Wheel is a great source to be quoting. Basically the equivalent of Seth Abramson. Yeah, says the guy quoting GG. Point out the issues in that article and maybe I'll cede that. You won't. If you don't like that one, here's another going over what we still haven't learned from the Mueller report that you and your kin gleefully cheer as a hoax: https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-new-unredacted-mueller-reportTry that one if you prefer. You seem to know a lot about Flynn et al, enlighten us. I got far enough in to the empty wheel article to see that he/she is defending the excommunication of maggie haberman for merely linking to the NYP story. And he/she is dim enough to think that it was Maggie's tweet, more so than the viral reaction to Maggie's tweet, that actually drew attention to the NYP story. As for flynn I've posted plenty about his case. If you think the criminal and national security theories that were dreamt up against him for his (randomly surveilled) phone call were well founded, I've got a bridge for you. The NYP is a tabloid newspaper owned by Murdoch and MH is predominantly a self-serving journalist. That story has been amplified despite it being a complete load of bullshit and most respectable organizations know as much. That's why she's been called out (in her follow-up tweets, MH admits as much). Maybe think a bit more about how that 'viral reaction' came to fruition; why someone might push for such a reaction to this (and who). Flynn's a scumbag and has admitted guilt multiple times. His lawyer is just a complete rat-fucker which is suitable given the rest of the people connected to Trump that have been found guilty by their peers. Stop defending these crooks you hack. I'd recommend checking your TDS. Maggie linked to the NYP article in a single tweet and resistance twitter lost its mind. Similar to how, in trumps town hall recently, there was a woman nodding her head in the background in agreement with trump - and the resistance lost its collective mind. Also the mueller team threatened flynns son so he cut a deal. That's actually a very simple matter. You are only trying to criminalize your political opposition, because like many, you haven't gotten your TDS in check yet. I can only imagine what things will be like if trump wins again. TDS, really? We reddit now? Again, read the articles and the underlying sourced material. Gave you two options and you're doing nothing but gaslighting like that hack you are. The hostility you direct toward someone who has the gall to point out the silliness of some of the attacks on trump and those around him, is itself evidence of derangement. But your empty wheel is some nonsense about "MAGA Haberman" and I've read enough lawfare to know how eager they are to criminalize trump. I might get around to the flynn article though because I do find that stuff interesting and I imagine it would be easy to point out the overzealousness of the lawfare writers' arguments.
You seem to think you're some sort of hero when all you're doing is gaslighting. I get it upsets you to be called out but that shit just shouldn't fly here.
The man is a criminal through and through and a complete wreck of a POTUS. Keep grasping at those Hunter straws while the dipshit lines his pockets with taxpayer dollars, basically all in plain sight, and fights tooth and nail to not disclose his finances and or whom he owes a half billion dollars (or more) to. It's pathetic man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qyehgsG.png)
