Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?


Jumbo

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

I sure could use a backdoor overture right now.  

I watched a Kansas concert from '09...Steve was on point, Kerry came back, David (who carried my luggage once) was absolutely a****ingmazing, and then there was the full orchestra.

I still wanna throw up watching the news.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LONG, succinct thread-timeline about Flynn's doings since June 2015. I'll post em all if anyone wants, or anyone else is welcome to.

 

Nothing to see here, it's just the same ol' Russia, Russia, Russia. No collusion!

 

Edited by SoulSkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Who is Patrick and how long has he been an idiot?

 

No idea, but not credible is what I'm sensing would be the consensus here. Apologies then. I'm just a little fired up tonight, but now remembering why I try not to drunk-post unless it's a really bad joke people will probably just ignore. Moving on. :kickcan:

 

Is this a good time to request a handle change to 'Transitive Idiot' Jumbo? I hate my screen name more than anything. That would be better.

Edited by SoulSkin
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, SoulSkin said:

 

No idea, but not credible is what I'm sensing would be the consensus here. Apologies then. I'm just a little fired up tonight, but now remembering why I try not to drunk-post unless it's a really bad joke people will probably just ignore. Moving on. :kickcan:

 

Is this a good time to request a handle change to 'Transitive Idiot' Jumbo? I hate my screen name more than anything. That would be better.

If your familiar with the Hannity conspiracy web diagram that was widely ridiculed you will note that it was far more concise than Patrick's. No worries though, it all dissolves into the aether.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoulSkin said:

 

No idea, but not credible is what I'm sensing would be the consensus here. Apologies then. I'm just a little fired up tonight, but now remembering why I try not to drunk-post unless it's a really bad joke people will probably just ignore. Moving on. :kickcan:

 

Is this a good time to request a handle change to 'Transitive Idiot' Jumbo? I hate my screen name more than anything. That would be better.

 

 

that's about as quick an activation of corrective self-assessment i've seen here in a long time :806:

 

 

i had a couple other gags but went easy on ya :P

 

 

always beware of such graphs/charts :ph34r::D

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

 

33 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

That was EXACTLY Nixon's position that he put forth during the David Frost interviews.

And the absurdity of that claim when Trump is a potential suspect of that investigation can only be measured on an astronomical scale. It is literally legalized corruption. Under that pretense a President could do anything and not be punished for it. However, that’s why each branch of government is accountable to the other two.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are people making ****loads of money in positions of power when they don't know what I do? 

I wait tables, for God's sake!  :taz:  But I also watched Nixon resign!  AND I KNEW WHY HE HAD TO.  At a young age!  It was important!

On another front, I thank Him that I'm no longer tending a bar.  I can't imagine what's going on with drunk people allowed to carry guns around here now.  (I was barred from a great place during the '04 campaign, I was telling EVERYONE what an idiot W was.) :lol:

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

100% Trump wrote that tweet. Regardless, it doesn't matter. It came out from under his name, hence, had his endorsement.

Can’t blame your speech writer because the text admitted to a felony when you gave it. 

 

Trump’s throwjng his lawyers under the bus, he’s letting Flynn, Manafort and everyone else around him take the fall, he’s actively undermining the Mueller, and attacking the integrity of the FBI.

 

This is your law & order candidate.

Trump voters and continued supporters you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. But, we know that you have no shame.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

100% Trump wrote that tweet. Regardless, it doesn't matter. It came out from under his name, hence, had his endorsement.

Here's the thing, Dowd came aboard in June.

 

All this stuff happened WAY before that.

 

How the hell does Dowd know that Flynn was fired in January for lying to the FBI?  He can't have known but for someone telling him.

 

So who told him?  If its Trump, it's just as bad.  And how could it not be Trump?  Trump fired Flynn so presumably knew the reasons underlying his firing.

 

Trump is screwed no matter how you slice this case.  Obstruction is done.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Here's the thing, Dowd came aboard in June.

 

All this stuff happened WAY before that.

 

How the hell does Dowd know that Flynn was fired in January for lying to the FBI?  He can't have known but for someone telling him.

 

So who told him?  If its Trump, it's just as bad.  And how could it not be Trump?  Trump fired Flynn so presumably knew the reasons underlying his firing.

 

Trump is screwed no matter how you slice this case.  Obstruction is done.

How does their latest excuse fly from a legal standpoint? 

The argument that the president cannot commit obstruction of justice because the constitution allows him that right.

I read an article that said there would be a constitutional crisis if he's charged with obstruction for this. 

Is there any truth to that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he pardons everyone, they can't claim the Fifth Amendment, at least for federal crimes. 

1 minute ago, redskinss said:

How does their latest excuse fly from a legal standpoint? 

The argument that the president cannot commit obstruction of justice because the constitution allows him that right.

I read an article that said there would be a constitutional crisis if he's charged with obstruction for this. 

Is there any truth to that? 

 

No, Nixon claimed the same thing. Didn't stop Congress from voting out articles of impeachment. 

 

He can't pardon himself from future criminal prosecution.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, redskinss said:

How does their latest excuse fly from a legal standpoint? 

The argument that the president cannot commit obstruction of justice because the constitution allows him that right.

I read an article that said there would be a constitutional crisis if he's charged with obstruction for this. 

Is there any truth to that? 

 

Firing Comey is his unquestionable legal right and a obstruction trial in court is not going to happen.

It reverts to Congress for review and threat of impeachment.

 

Like arguing if the chicken or egg came first.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, redskinss said:

How does their latest excuse fly from a legal standpoint? 

The argument that the president cannot commit obstruction of justice because the constitution allows him that right.

I read an article that said there would be a constitutional crisis if he's charged with obstruction for this. 

Is there any truth to that? 

I mean, Nixon was tossed in part for obstruction, and obstruction was one of the key charges in Clinton's impeachment.

 

The argument that its not a crime when the President does it, I think, rings very hollow.  Nixon tried it.  Nixon failed.  It's one of those things you throw at the wall to defend the Pres, but realistically speaking, it's not gonna stick.

 

The bigger constitutional crisis will likely stem from Congress being unwilling to impeach him once we see all the stuff he's done.  Abdication of responsibility is and will be a big problem.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

 

The bigger constitutional crisis will likely stem from Congress being unwilling to impeach him once we see all the stuff he's done.  Abdication of responsibility is and will be a big problem.

 

How would congress be abdicating responsibility when they are the ultimate judge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that Preet Bharara NPR segment on the way into work this AM, and listened again earlier when I saw that tweet. Interesting that he basically says not to assume that Flynn only being charged with lying to the FBI necessarily means he's 100% got dirt to take other people down. He also said it was not normal for Flynn to not initially be charged with everything they could, and it's possible that's all they have. Basically, a 'nobody really knows other than Mueller's team and Flynn'.

Edited by SoulSkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...