Obviously. All they can do is say you're a pedophile supporter, further name call then disappear when asked for evidence.
Your inability to comprehend potential evidence of complicity does not mean there is no potential evidence of complicity. We aren’t supposed to question the connections of the dozens of now available dots?
When I was younger and minoring in existentialism, I started recounting certain parts of my childhood and remembered the entry exam to the gifted and talented program pre-1st grade. Part of the exam was pages of various, disparate clouds of dots you had to connect with linework. There were no instructions but you had to instead use your imagination and create whatever you wanted out of those. Of course, everyone's outcomes were different and I suppose the most profound & resolved outcomes were those of people like myself who were admitted into this tiny program of whom most people excelled wildly as an adult.
My point is that you are connecting the dots to an image of what you want the outcome to be, not of where the unknown points are located. You are blindly inferencing where those lines go based on the select, cryptic information they are intentionally giving you, so dumb people like yourself, who failed advanced coursework throughout their life, can complete a picture that has been neatly framed for you. Obviously, the low amount of information purposely leaked has been curated for you.
If what you believe is true, why wouldn't they release the entire picture without you having to "connect the dots" as you in some conspiratorial argument you are attempting to make? It would be much easier for us all to agree a fully painted portrait is clearly legible over these cryptic, frankly piss poor email fragments. The answer is because they have spent a lot of time and money crafting these fragments for you. For the non-gifted and the non-talented sheep who struggle with truth but are easily fooled by optical illusions.
You enjoy your day being very positive and productive on the internet.
I own a business. I don't have to be productive. I pay others to be.
What do you make of the gibberish "emails" they fed us?
I’m trying to decide if the more honest but slightly more aggressive adolt persona of bitter failed soldier and subsequent low level contractor was more or less pathetic than the even more dishonest gnarly persona of elite educated wealthy businessman. Typing that last part is impossible without laughing.
I own a business. I don't have to be productive. I pay others to be.
What do you make of the gibberish "emails" they fed us?
I’m trying to decide if the more honest but slightly more aggressive adolt persona of bitter failed soldier and subsequent low level contractor was more or less pathetic than the even more dishonest gnarly persona of elite educated wealthy businessman. Typing that last part is impossible without laughing.
Most common thread: People really don’t like you.
That part is 100% reality.
Doesn't really matter what you think. That part is 100% reality.
Agip posts here regularly. If you were smarter it would be easy to spot.
I’ve wondered about that a few times. Along with other formerly common posters. But claiming to easily spot any of it with great confidence is a bit smarty pants, don’t you think?
Agip posts here regularly. If you were smarter it would be easy to spot.
I’ve wondered about that a few times. Along with other formerly common posters. But claiming to easily spot any of it with great confidence is a bit smarty pants, don’t you think?
But I guess that’s also the (strange?) upside of an anonymous board: Who is saying something really doesn’t/shouldn’t matter.
I’ve wondered about that a few times. Along with other formerly common posters. But claiming to easily spot any of it with great confidence is a bit smarty pants, don’t you think?
But I guess that’s also the (strange?) upside of an anonymous board: Who is saying something really doesn’t/shouldn’t matter.
adolt, it’s funny that you almost certainly downvoted this. No matter what handle you use, people hate you. Funny.
Posting this because MSNBC just said two high-powered lawyers are on their way to argue the matter on behalf of Comey in front of a judge and that it "does not look good" for the prosecution. I would expect no less from them. Brief summary of the points and lengthy discussion of what I feel the merits are below (for the record, I don't think Comey's motion--or motions--will succeed).
Ok, this motion claims that the 120 day period that the judiciary has to appoint interim prosecutors is irrelevant. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General (who appointed prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, not Trump) has the authority to appoint whomever she wants when the position is vacant. The judiciary does not have sole authority to appoint; the authority should be considered "parallel," with the executive branch (Bondi) having equal authority.
That is the argument in the motion, not my argument.
Just for clarity, I believe you are summarizing the prosecution’s response, not "the motion." Comey is the one who filed a motion on 28 USC 546.
Also, Comey filed a reply brief on November 10th to the prosecution’s response. That’s just FYI, in case you want to read it. Docket No. 175.
My take on the legality of the Hanrihan appointment is that Comey is arguing that 28 USC 546 limits any and all interim appointments of U.S. attorneys by the Attorney General to 120 days combined, after which the District Court judges appoint the U.S. attorney for that District. The prosecution, on the other hand, is arguing that as long as they appoint a new interim U.S. attorney before the expiration of 120 days on the current appointment, the 120 day calendar continually resets. So the prosecution says that 28 USC 546 allows, for example, the Attorney General to serially appoint a new interim U.S. attorney (or even the same interim U.S attorney) every 119 days for as many years as they want to. That sounds nuts to me and I doubt any judge is going to read 28 USC 546 that way. Just my opinion.
It should be noted that two other District courts that have recently considered 28 USC 546 on similar facts have ruled against the Attorney General. That’s the New Jersey Giraurd case (attorney Ahabba) and the Nevada Garcia case (attorney Chattah) (both cases cited by Comey) where the Attorney General tried exactly that 119 day stunt to appoint another interim attorney.
Final point, because I'll expand on it below and explain why I think it's compelling (or use my own argument, based on my understanding of the law and making a prediction about how the judge will rule): even if Lindsey Halligan were improperly appointed, the indictment itself is not invalid (that's a double negative, so to clarify, the argument here is: the grand jury still handed down a valid indictment based on their deliberations and the question of whether or not Halligan had the legal authority to sign that indictment is irrelevant. Comey's argument is that it *does* matter, for the record.) OK, this last point is really interesting. I started to read up on motions to dismiss and came across the following case... A man was accused of pointing a gun at two people that he got into an argument with. In most jurisdictions, that is a felony (usually felony assault with a dangerous weapon). When the police arrived, they questioned the man. The sheriff and the man got into an argument. The man brought up a case where the Sheriff was accused of misconduct (I can't remember the details....but the case was widely reported in the media.) This upset the Sheriff. He threatened to hold the man without bail when he was arrested (and to clarify, if the police think you are guilty of committing a violent felony and have enough evidence to charge you...then you are going to jail). The sheriff does not have the authority to set terms of bail, that is determined by a judge, at the arraignment, which is a hearing where the charges are read, the judge usually consults guidelines to set bail terms, and a dollar amount is given. On the way to jail, another officer told the man that bail would likely be in the $200-$300 range. From jail, the man called his girlfriend and asked her to bring at least $300 dollars so she could bail him out. The Sheriff then contacted the judge without the man bring present and told the judge that he felt bail should be set at $1000. This is a violation of the suspect's civil rights. He has a right to be present (with an attorney) at any meeting where this matter is discussed. It gets worse. The judge didn't make a ruling and there was no arraingement before the girlfriend arrived at the jail. Usually the arrangement needs to happen within a "reasonable" amount of time. It varies by state, but since most courts aren't open on the weekend, it's usually 72 hours at maximum. To clarify, the arraignment was not postponed, it just hadn't happened yet. The girlfriend shows up at the jail with $300 in cash. A deputy at the jail checks the records for the man and discovers that it says "held without bail" in the jail computer system. That was not the judge's ruling. Again, the judge hasn't made a ruling yet. That is another violation of the man's civil rights. The man's attorney files a motion to dismiss, using the argument that the man's civil rights have been violated, which they have been without question. The police are part of the executive branch. They can make arrests and gather evidence to support the case for conviction. They cannot make arguments about how bail should be set without the man or his attorney being present, nor can they tell someone "he's being held without bail" when no such ruling exists. Those elements are determined by a judge, who belongs to the judicial branch. The judge reviews the motion to dismiss and determines that the man's attorney is correct: his civil rights *have* been violated (not once, but twice). But...the judge also denies the motion to dismiss. If there is a clear and convincing case that official misconduct has occurred, how can the judge let the charges stand? Well...the judge rules that the man has remedies for the misconduct. He can file a lawsuit and recover damages. But his argument that the police were biased against him and acted on that bias to infringe upon his civil rights is irrelevant to the charge. The questions, posed by the indictment, is: did the man point a weapon at someone else and, if so, what evidence is there to support the claim that it rises to the level of a crime? That's either true and there is enough evidence to support the claim that the man broke the law, or it isn't true and there isn't enough evidence to show that a crime occurred. The defendant's attorney has failed to prove that the misconduct made the charge irrelevant. That's the government's key argument in a nutshell.
I think I agree with you. The prosecution is saying even if Hanrihan was not appointed lawfully, there is no harm, no foul to any defendants. I believe in court today that the prosecution called it “a paperwork error.” I think that was pretty stupid of them to downplay it like that. They lose credibility, since it was obviously not a paperwork error. The Attorney General's office put a lot of time into drawing up this argument and putting it in practice (Ahabba was appointed to 4 different attorney positions in one day in New Jersey to try and fit into 28 USC 546).
But anyway, it’s really hard to determine what the remedy should be. Dismissal with prejudice seems out of the question. Too harsh. The judge in Nevada denied the request for dismissal and I believe just disqualified the interim U.S. attorney off the case. The judge in New Jersey did similar. Those cases might be different, because in the Comey case, Hanrihan was the only attorney on the grand jury and the Indictment. I don’t think that was true in Nevada or New Jersey. So the judge may, if she decides Hanrihan is improperly appointed, dismiss without prejudice and make the prosecution start over with the grand jury.
One interesting point I read somewhere today is that the judge at the Comey hearing asked the prosecution if Judge Cannon’s ruling in US v. Trump’s Bathroom was decided wrong as to remedy. That seems like it would be a very difficult question to answer for the prosecution in Comey where they are arguing that a case dismissal based on an improperly appointed attorney is a drastic remedy.
WASHINGTON – Jeffrey Epstein mentioned President Donald Trump in an email exchange about his plans for Thanksgiving in 2017, according to documents released by members of the House Oversight Committee.
In an email exchange on Nov. 23, 2017, Faith Kates, the founder of NEXT Model Management, asked the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender where he was spending Thanksgiving.
Epstein replied, "eva," possibly a reference to his former girlfriend Eva Andersson-Dubin. Kates said that means "glenn" must be there, a likely reference to Glenn Dubin, Andersson-Dubin’s husband.
Kates then asked, "who else is down there?"
"David fizel. hanson. trump," Epstein replied.
"Have fun!!!" Kates wrote back.
Records show that Trump spent his first Thanksgiving as president at his properties in Florida, including his private club Mar-a-Lago and a few hours at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.
I wish the media would link what it's discussing. I suppose if they did, they'd make less money, because who needs them to report on what one can read themselves?
If I researched this correctly (and linked it correctly), this is probably the email that USA Today is talking about.
I think it's a pretty far stretch to conclude from that email that Epstein was Trump's guest for Thanksgiving in 2017. We would have heard about it, unless he snuck Epstein in through the Baffroom window.
Great work ICE. W ICE. Taking criminals off the streets and prepping them for deportation or worse on the reg. Godspeed tonight ICE, you are Patriots. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter, and we will not fail.
Hundreds of criminal illegal aliens, many of whom are child sex predators, have been arrested in a 10-day operation across Florida, state and federal law enforcement officials announced Thursday. Operation Criminal Return launched on Oct. 25 and resulted in the arrests of 230 criminal illegal immigrants, including those who are registered sex offenders and have extensive criminal histories, officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Florida Department of Law Enforcement said. "This operation underscores President Trump and Secretary Noem’s determination to target and remove dangerous criminal alien predators from the United States," said ICE Deputy Director Madison Sheahan. "Sanctuary cities that shield these criminals from accountability undermine the rule of law and jeopardize the safety of their residents." The operation, also dubbed Operation Dirtbag, targeted child predators, rapists, and violent criminal illegal immigrants with convictions that range from sexual assault of minors, rape, lewd and lascivious conduct, and child exploitation to battery and attempted homicide, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a press release. Of the more than 230 criminal illegal immigrants arrested, 150 were sexual predators, DHS said. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in a statement that those arrested were among "the most dangerous criminal illegal aliens with horrific criminal histories," which include sex crimes against children. He added that those arrested "will be out of our country soon."
"Florida has been the most aggressive state in America on combating illegal immigration, and our state and local law enforcement agencies are doing more every day to be the federal government's greatest tool in the fight to enforce immigration law," DeSantis said.
Agip posts here regularly. If you were smarter it would be easy to spot.
I’ve wondered about that a few times. Along with other formerly common posters. But claiming to easily spot any of it with great confidence is a bit smarty pants, don’t you think?
He's not posting. My "Baghdad" detector is never wrong.
President Trump’s leadership is helping forge a new age of partnership and prosperity across the Western Hemisphere, announcing Joint Statements with El Salvador, Argentina, Ecuador, and Guatemala for Frameworks for Agreements on Reciprocal Trade.
I’ve wondered about that a few times. Along with other formerly common posters. But claiming to easily spot any of it with great confidence is a bit smarty pants, don’t you think?
He's not posting. My "Baghdad" detector is never wrong.
It would be irresponsible of me to out him without his approval.
But I am not the least bit surprised that Disco is not perceptive enough to figure it out. Considering his selection of messiahs
Your inability to comprehend potential evidence of complicity does not mean there is no potential evidence of complicity. We aren’t supposed to question the connections of the dozens of now available dots?
When I was younger and minoring in existentialism, I started recounting certain parts of my childhood and remembered the entry exam to the gifted and talented program pre-1st grade. Part of the exam was pages of various, disparate clouds of dots you had to connect with linework. There were no instructions but you had to instead use your imagination and create whatever you wanted out of those. Of course, everyone's outcomes were different and I suppose the most profound & resolved outcomes were those of people like myself who were admitted into this tiny program of whom most people excelled wildly as an adult.
My point is that you are connecting the dots to an image of what you want the outcome to be, not of where the unknown points are located. You are blindly inferencing where those lines go based on the select, cryptic information they are intentionally giving you, so dumb people like yourself, who failed advanced coursework throughout their life, can complete a picture that has been neatly framed for you. Obviously, the low amount of information purposely leaked has been curated for you.
If what you believe is true, why wouldn't they release the entire picture without you having to "connect the dots" as you in some conspiratorial argument you are attempting to make? It would be much easier for us all to agree a fully painted portrait is clearly legible over these cryptic, frankly piss poor email fragments. The answer is because they have spent a lot of time and money crafting these fragments for you. For the non-gifted and the non-talented sheep who struggle with truth but are easily fooled by optical illusions.
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that it filed legal action against Governor Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber for the State of California’s newly adopted redistricting plan enacted with the...
Bondi: The Comey indictment is going to be just fine. I have also signed onto that, backing up what Lindsay Halligan did, because they are coming after her. I read all of the transcripts. She's doing a great job.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
