Anyone that reads this and thinks that Trump is voluntarily leaving office after his term is delusional
He has no choice but to try. The presidency comes with immunity, post presidency does not. It is the primary reason he ran in 2024.
It is truly bizarre that he was elected again when maga constantly called Biden & son crooked and Trump and sons are so obviously and obscenely more corrupt. 'Merica.
Anyone that reads this and thinks that Trump is voluntarily leaving office after his term is delusional
He has no choice but to try. The presidency comes with immunity, post presidency does not. It is the primary reason he ran in 2024.
It is truly bizarre that he was elected again when maga constantly called Biden & son crooked and Trump and sons are so obviously and obscenely more corrupt. 'Merica.
Every crackpot dictator in history stayed in office not because of a thirst for power. Nor because they needed to engage in corruption to enrich themselves further.
It’s because they don’t dare give their power to someone with the potential to hold them accountable after their crime spree.
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.
Were you bullied in school?
He got beat up by the black kids all the time. He stuck out as weak.
I'm starting to feel like a librarian here. Why am I chasing down easily locatable information for people who have opinions on stuff they never read?
I have not cited the New York Times as evidence of anything, much less evidence that Comey told the truth. The New York Times has nothing to do with this, and I never suggested for a second that it did.
To repeat, the only time I have mentioned the New York Times was in response to YOUR statement that the New York Times should not be reporting on grand jury vote results. I now regret commenting on your statement, as you have twice now conjured needless and strange strawman arguments about it.
No, you did not get that right or even close to right, starting with your characterization of what I posted as an "argument" that I was making. I was trying to answer your question "Who is Andy McCabe?" I suppose I could have simply said "He's a guy who worked at the FBI." But I thought I'd give you the benefit of the digging around on Andy McCabe that I did 3-4 weeks ago when the Indictment was filed. Hence the long, detailed answer to your question. I hope it helped inform you on things, but it doesn't look like it did.
What if I'm wrong about what? Who Andy McCabe is? Then I'm wrong, I guess. I doubt I'm wrong about who he is, given the links I have provided you above. Senators Cruz and Grassley were asking Comey about someone named Andy McCabe who worked at the FBI, and the FBI wrote a Report about an employee named Andy McCabe. See links above.
Agreed, except that it may not get to a trial, but if it does, it will be a fair one, and we will know the outcome when the jury gives its verdict. Agreed.
This evening, Comey filed the motion to dismiss that many predicted was coming (in some form or another). In fact, it reads almost exactly like the comments here predicted it would.
The executive summary is that Senator Cruz's question was (1) ambiguous, (2) to the extent it can be understood it was directed to Andrew McCabe, (3) Cruz's questions contained factual inaccuracies that rendered them essentially unanswerable, (4) the Indictment itself even misquotes Comey and (5) alternatively, Comey answered Cruz accurately.
This is a really compelling motion on the facts here. See, e.g., Page 11 ("Even if Senator Cruz’s use of compound questions did not by itself make those questions fundamentally ambiguous, context confirms that Mr. Comey could not have reasonably known that Senator Cruz was asking him to answer a broad question about anyone at the FBI when asked a specific question about Mr. McCabe."); Page 13 ("a reasonable witness most readily would have understood Senator Cruz to be asking him to specifically address whether he had authorized Mr. McCabe to serve as a source to the Wall Street Journal."); Page 19 ("Senator Cruz’s questions referenced whether Mr. Comey authorized anonymous sources to report on the “Trump investigation,” which did not exist during his tenure as FBI Director, and the “Clinton administration,” which had ended nearly 17 years earlier.")
Page 18 in particular is compelling in its explanation that Comey accurately answered the only two questions that Cruz actually asked when you get through all the background premise (Comey is only accused on one, and it's anyone's guess which): (1) "Who's telling the truth?" and (2) "And Mr. McCabe when if he says contrary is not telling the truth, is that correct?"
I can't figure out how the prosecution, especially Hanrihans who appears to be incompetent, will be able to file a reasonable response that explains what the Cruz questions actually meant and how were directed to someone else other than McCabe. I guess we shall see in a few weeks.
Developing . . . . .
The really important brief that got filed today was the prosecution's Response to Comey's motion regarding the ambiguity of the questions alleged to be answered falsely.
I don't think they gave a reasonable explanation of how the Cruz questions apply to anyone other than McCabe. And they seemed to cross themselves up a few times. For example, they say that the question: "So, your testimony is that you’ve never authorized anyone to leak. And Mr. McCabe if he says contrary is not telling the truth, is that correct?" is an "either-or question" (which would mean it IS about McCabe) and then ALSO say it's broad enough to somehow cover Richman. Makes no sense.
I think they are also doing what some people predicted they would do (and I thought was too whacko) and trying to claim the 2017 testimony to Grassley, which they claim without elaboration is false, is somehow moved up in time to 2020 (to avoid the statute of limitations) by Cruz ALLEGEDLY asking Comey in 2020 whether he was correct in 2017. See page 11 ("And that testimony was false in 2020 just like it was in 2017."). Cruz never did ask it that clearly, but even if he did, I don't see how you can do legally do that, and they don't cite any cases for that.
The main point the prosecution had was that motions to dismiss have a high standard and it's up to a jury to determine what the questions mean. In general, they seem correct, but their false statement theory just seems so strained on the Q&A in the Indictment, that I think there is a 50-50 chance this gets dismissed OR the Judge rules that he is going to limit the scope of the questions to McCabe, in which case I assume the prosecution would dismiss the case and appeal.
RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to James B. Comey, Jr re 105 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment Based on Fundamental Ambiguity and Literal Truth (Diaz, Gabriel) (Entered: 11/13/2025)
Easily the funniest content I’ve consumed on the internet today and I rewatched Coffin Flop! “It’s not just one body. It’s hundreds of bodies!”
So, let me get this straight...you're criticizing inference composition while making baseless inferences about deliberate selection of evidence? It couldn’t be sane people addressing and assessing the same information we’ve all seen publicly up to this point. But hey, I bet writing whatever this is knocked your ego's socks off. Congrats on that, I guess.
Also, the YMCA pre-school placement exam isn't that hard. And when they told you and a few other “gifted” kids to hold onto a kick board for the entirety of open swim…never mind. You sound very gifted.
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.
And yet you took the time to respond, and within ten minutes of his post. Business must be slow.
Kudos to the Cooley LLP law firm for defending Comey, knowing that it will put them even higher on Trump's hit list (they are already on the list for defending Jenner & Block).
The really important brief that got filed today was the prosecution's Response to Comey's motion regarding the ambiguity of the questions alleged to be answered falsely.
I don't think they gave a reasonable explanation of how the Cruz questions apply to anyone other than McCabe. And they seemed to cross themselves up a few times. For example, they say that the question: "So, your testimony is that you’ve never authorized anyone to leak. And Mr. McCabe if he says contrary is not telling the truth, is that correct?" is an "either-or question" (which would mean it IS about McCabe) and then ALSO say it's broad enough to somehow cover Richman. Makes no sense.
I think they are also doing what some people predicted they would do (and I thought was too whacko) and trying to claim the 2017 testimony to Grassley, which they claim without elaboration is false, is somehow moved up in time to 2020 (to avoid the statute of limitations) by Cruz ALLEGEDLY asking Comey in 2020 whether he was correct in 2017. See page 11 ("And that testimony was false in 2020 just like it was in 2017."). Cruz never did ask it that clearly, but even if he did, I don't see how you can do legally do that, and they don't cite any cases for that.
The main point the prosecution had was that motions to dismiss have a high standard and it's up to a jury to determine what the questions mean. In general, they seem correct, but their false statement theory just seems so strained on the Q&A in the Indictment, that I think there is a 50-50 chance this gets dismissed OR the Judge rules that he is going to limit the scope of the questions to McCabe, in which case I assume the prosecution would dismiss the case and appeal.
When you look at the extent that Hallogen-Trump-Bondi are exerting themselves to find a prosecutable lie in Comey's testimony and compare it to the fabrications of Trump's people in front of the Senate, it makes you wonder if Trump would be better served just scanning mortage applications of his political foes for errors instead. This retribution tour is gonna be a dud if all his cases are this bad.
The really important brief that got filed today was the prosecution's Response to Comey's motion regarding the ambiguity of the questions alleged to be answered falsely.
I don't think they gave a reasonable explanation of how the Cruz questions apply to anyone other than McCabe. And they seemed to cross themselves up a few times. For example, they say that the question: "So, your testimony is that you’ve never authorized anyone to leak. And Mr. McCabe if he says contrary is not telling the truth, is that correct?" is an "either-or question" (which would mean it IS about McCabe) and then ALSO say it's broad enough to somehow cover Richman. Makes no sense.
I think they are also doing what some people predicted they would do (and I thought was too whacko) and trying to claim the 2017 testimony to Grassley, which they claim without elaboration is false, is somehow moved up in time to 2020 (to avoid the statute of limitations) by Cruz ALLEGEDLY asking Comey in 2020 whether he was correct in 2017. See page 11 ("And that testimony was false in 2020 just like it was in 2017."). Cruz never did ask it that clearly, but even if he did, I don't see how you can do legally do that, and they don't cite any cases for that.
The main point the prosecution had was that motions to dismiss have a high standard and it's up to a jury to determine what the questions mean. In general, they seem correct, but their false statement theory just seems so strained on the Q&A in the Indictment, that I think there is a 50-50 chance this gets dismissed OR the Judge rules that he is going to limit the scope of the questions to McCabe, in which case I assume the prosecution would dismiss the case and appeal.
When you look at the extent that Hallogen-Trump-Bondi are exerting themselves to find a prosecutable lie in Comey's testimony and compare it to the fabrications of Trump's people in front of the Senate, it makes you wonder if Trump would be better served just scanning mortage applications of his political foes for errors instead. This retribution tour is gonna be a dud if all his cases are this bad.
Another win for ICE and the American people. Well done Patriots. Godspeed today and over the weekend.
A notorious criminal on El Salvador’s list of most-wanted gang members has been taken into custody on United States soil, according to federal officials. Antonio Israel Lazo-Quintanilla was arrested in Maryland earlier this month after police caught him allegedly driving without a license, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a news release. While the arrest marks Lazo-Quintanilla’s first known run-in with the law in the United States, authorities learned he is wanted in his home country for numerous crimes, including aggravated homicide, extortion and possession of drugs, according to DHS. "Seventy percent of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens charged or convicted of a crime in the United States," DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. "This gang member on El Salvador’s most wanted list is a perfect example of ICE targeting the worst of the worst. "He may lack a violent rap sheet in the U.S., but this criminal illegal alien is clearly a public safety threat. "The media’s false claims that ICE is not arresting the worst of the worst simply has no grounding," McLaughlin added. "In reality, ICE is arresting criminal illegal aliens before they can victimize Americans." Lazo-Quintanilla, whose mugshot shows a large "666" tattoo across his forehead, is also "a confirmed member of the 18th Street Gang" in El Salvador, which has been designated a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) by the Trump administration, according to DHS.
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 have probably the greatest username I have ever seen on these forums. Every time I see it, I get jealous.
I wanted to ask you what Sartre says about the imagination, because I don't think people really understand existentialism. But then, neither do I. So I asked ChatGPT. And, fwiw, I wanted to invite you to check my work...if you feel like it.
Existentialism isn't the fatalist philosophy it is often portrayed as. When took World Lit in high school, I was taught that a core tenet of the philosophy was that life had no meaning and we were essentially born to die. That's part of the picture, but a misrepresentation of what it's actually about.
Sartre thought that life didn't have meaning in and of itself. We actually control our lives, through the choices we make, and those choices give our life meaning. It is therefore up to us to give life meaning. That's what "life has no meaning" means; it's not a fatalistic world view. It's actually an optimistic take on human potential.
For Sartre, the imagination was a key component in how we look at the world. It's part of our consciousness, which consists of intentional acts, and therefore plays a key role in the choices we make. In our imagination, we can see the world as it *isn't*. That allows us to ponder choices, and ultimately to remake our lives, not as they are, but as we imagine them to be.
A key part of Sartre's conception of existentialism is the concept of "bad faith" ("mauvaise foi," which literally means "bad faith.") Bad faith is something akin to stubbornness; it's a refusal to see things any other way than the worst way we can imagine them. Perhaps it's a refusal to use our imagination at all, because it would be a massive oversimplification to say that Sartre wants this concept to rest on the axis between "optimism" or "pessimism." The key component of our imagination, after all, is choice (when we imagine things, it's a conscious choice, not seeing things as they are). Repeating myself, but the choices we make give our life meaning.
All of this is a bit of an oversimplification, so, again, I want to invite you to comment on how accurate this is. Sartre could not have anticipated message boards or social media...but he didn't have to. There's something to his philosophy, and I'm curious if you think it applies here.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
It's the first time in 4 years that take home pay has outpaced inflation.
"Yes, on average, take-home pay has outpaced inflation for a period of time, with average wages rising faster than inflation for more than two years in the U.S."
Remind me: Who was POTUS for the majority of that "more than two years"?
And NOTE: Take-home pay is defined as "income remaining from salary or wages after deductions (as for income-tax withholding)." The extra we're paying because of tariffs--and SCOTUS has agreed that tariffs are taxes--is not part of withholding but comes out of our take-home pay, effectively reducing it.
How about that Ukraine war? Russians targeted and killed civilians in Kiev again last night. As usual, Trump has done nothing to either end the war (as promised on day one with just a phone call) nor to help Ukraine or condemn these war crimes by Putin. Why is Trump so weak? Why does he fawn over Putin?
Meanwhile Russia is losing a generation of men as they are thrown at the front lines with no training in a human wave reminiscent of their WWII tactics. Though horrible, this may be the silver lining as their population and influence rapidly declines over the next few decades.
Always putting the American people first. nobody cares more about getting the price of groceries - an old fashioned term, but a beautiful term - down than Trump, to help everyone, especially those who are lower income. And realizing that it's not the best idea to tariff things that can't be made in America is significant progress.
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.
