• Blog Entries

    • By JimmiJo in ES Coverage
         0
      ES Coverage Cowboys vs Redskins 2019
       
      9/15/19
       
      Do I look like I'm playing? I'm not playing. This is the Washington Redskins versus the Dallas Cowboys. If you are a fan of this game, and this one does not get you excited you might want to check your pulse.
       
      Hello my friends it is I, JimmiJo, back for another year of this wonderful thing we call Redskins Football. This makes season 14 for me. I am joined by The Spaceman Spiff who will hereafter be known as "The Spaceman Spiff." 
       
      Where's that dude that gets the big tattoos on his back? There's his next one.
       
      So how important is this game? I don't know. What is the different between 1-1 and 0-2? The difference between batting .500 and zippy?
       
      Throw in that this is their 2nd division game to start the year AND a home game and you have a critical match.
       
      And once again they contend with critical injuries to start the year. Last year it was  their rookie star running back. This year its their 2nd year star...well you get the rest.  Darrius Guice is gone and not coming back this year. I think this really hurts him moving forward. Not sure who will build a scheme around him given his first two seasons.
       
      So it is down to the veteran Adrian Peterson. I have no worries of ring rust for hum. None whatsoever. He knows what to do.
       
      Anyway, almost time. Please share your thoughts.
       
      Stand by...
       
      Inactives
       
      The Redskins declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 12 QB Colt McCoy
      o   No. 23 CB Quinton Dunbar
      o   No. 31 Fabian Moreau
      o   No. 64 C Ross Pierschbacher
      o   No. 67 G Wes Martin
      o   No. 86 TE Jordan Reed
      o   No. 93 DT Jonathan Allen
       
      The Cowboys declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 10 WR Tavon Austin
      o   No. 37 S Donovan Wilson
      o   No. 57 LB Luke Gifford
      o   No. 61 C Adam Redmond
      o   No. 69 G Brandon Knight
      o   No. 79 DT Trysten Hill
      o   No. 97 DE Taco Charlton
       
      Follow along in-game at Twitter @Skinscast 
       
Jumbo

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

Recommended Posts

When Comey was fired and Rosenstein was questioned before the committee, I remember thinking “now Trump is just gonna skate with this guy in charge”. Soon he appointed Mueller.

 

Hoping the same thing will happen with Barr. Somebody has to stop this atrocity. Might as well be Bill.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

Question for everyone:  If Mueller report can't find a *direct* connection to the specific collusion issue, will it even matter that else the investigation, or the other investigations going on (all have to do with dirt, likely illegal, money practices) find him to be guilty of, or were too many "Collusion" eggs been put in the basket where if he isn't charged with that specifically, any hope of ousting the President over with as far as support from enough GOP members backed by the American people?

 

Oh, "no collusion" was created from the outset as a shorthand for "well, the government does not have a recording of Trump personally, and Putin personally, agreeing to an explicit quid pro quo, which they then carried out". (We hope.)

 

And from what I've seen of the GOP voters, they'd deny it even if there was. 

58 minutes ago, twa said:

If Mueller finds no direct evidence of collusion or obstruction Trump will certainly benefit.

 

Assume you mean "evidence of obstruction over and above firing the head of the FBI because he failed to promise to keep Trump's staff from being mentioned in the counterintelligence investigation that was just getting started"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

Assume you mean "evidence of obstruction over and above firing the head of the FBI because he failed to promise to keep Trump's staff from being mentioned in the counterintelligence investigation that was just getting started"?

 

I assume you think you don't need real evidence that that was the reason.

 

what is your quote from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not worrying about Trump coming out of this investigation looking clean until I hear what Gates, Flynn and Cohen gave up for leniency. The number of lies already exposed should be enough for most thinking people anyhow. MAGA people will go to their graves believing whatever Trump tells them, so the effect on them is Irrelevant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twa said:

 

I assume you think you don't need real evidence that that was the reason.

 

 

I assume you think you can sell the notion that the fact that he made the demand, then within days instructed his staff to start generating a cover story for firing him, then within days of the firing announced that it was a cover story, taken in context of two years of his other actions, isn't enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stone left the courthouse looking so smug. Judge probably did the right thing, but she ought to have thrown the book at him. He is a prime definition of "contempt of court"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, twa said:

I assume you think you don't need real evidence that that was the reason.

I don’t know what you’re responding to but definitely agree that I hate when people claim things to be true with no supporting evidence.

 

edit: WAIT!!! YOU SAID THAT?!?!?

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

I assume you think you can sell the notion that the fact that he made the demand, then within days instructed his staff to start generating a cover story for firing him, then within days of the firing announced that it was a cover story, taken in context of two years of his other actions, isn't enough. 

 

Any proof it was a demand?

 

Odd the Dems haven't gone all in on impeachment IF what you say is provable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Any proof it was a demand?

 

Odd the Dems haven't gone all in on impeachment IF what you say is provable.

 

 

You believe they aren't going to impeach him? They have said they will wait until they have Mueller's report. Plus having the damning testimony closer to the election makes sense politically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

Any proof it was a demand?

 

Other than the fact that the decision to fire him was made within days of him failing to agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Other than the fact that the decision to fire him was made within days of him failing to agree?

 

That is not proof

3 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

You believe they aren't going to impeach him? They have said they will wait until they have Mueller's report. Plus having the damning testimony closer to the election makes sense politically.

 

I'd imagine it will depend on new information.

 

You are claiming they are delaying removing a genuine threat to the country in hope of political benefit? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

That is not proof

 

I'd imagine it will depend on new information.

 

You are claiming they are delaying removing a genuine threat to the country in hope of political benefit? 

They are waiting to be fully locked and loaded. And yeah, it's politics. For that reason Republicans in the Senate have and will prevent him from being removed even though it's obvious he should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RedskinsFan44 said:

They are waiting to be fully locked and loaded. And yeah, it's politics. For that reason Republicans in the Senate have and will prevent him from being removed even though it's obvious he should be.

 

and if Mueller adds nothing much new ?

 

I was fine with impeaching him immediately after confirmation.

Don't blame Republicans for Dem inaction.......what the Dems want is political cover.(same as the never Trumpers) :ols:

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

and if Mueller adds nothing much new ?

 

That depends is this "Mueller" Mueller or Unreasonably Redacted Mueller.

 

Because Mueller Mueller has a lot.

 

Unreasonably Redacted Mueller will have less, because, you know, of bad people trying to bury things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think they can muzzle Mueller from disclosing anything important? :ols:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

That depends is this "Mueller" Mueller or Unreasonably Redacted Mueller.

 

Because Mueller Mueller has a lot.

 

Unreasonably Redacted Mueller will have less, because, you know, of bad people trying to bury things.

 

 

Mueller won’t be redacted unless he allows himself to be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

Mueller won’t be redacted unless he allows himself to be.

 

I don't think Mueller will have that power. IIRC the law says (paraphrasing) that he has to turn in his full report to the AG. Then the AG/DoJ decide on what to do and how to report to Congress. If they wanted to they could probably write "no collusion" on a piece of toilet paper and send it to Congress and say "done". But with a Dem House they'll do everything they can to get it out into the light. However that will mean some major court battles when they try to subpoena the full report.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

I don't think Mueller will have that power. IIRC the law says (paraphrasing) that he has to turn in his full report to the AG. Then the AG/DoJ decide on what to do and how to report to Congress. If they wanted to they could probably write "no collusion" on a piece of toilet paper and send it to Congress and say "done". But with a Dem House they'll do everything they can to get it out into the light. However that will mean some major court battles when they try to subpoena the full report.

 

 

He is perfectly capable of giving his opinion on the AGs report without releasing classified information.  The AG can’t, for example, stop Mueller from saying “The AGs report is incomplete” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, twa said:

 

and if Mueller adds nothing much new ?

 

I was fine with impeaching him immediately after confirmation.

Don't blame Republicans for Dem inaction.......what the Dems want is political cover.(same as the never Trumpers) :ols:

 

 

 

This is an absolute joke and you know it. Try to do better.

Edited by RedskinsFan44
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

He is perfectly capable of giving his opinion on the AGs report without releasing classified information.  The AG can’t, for example, stop Mueller from saying “The AGs report is incomplete” 

 

Yeah, sure, but if he can't elaborate on how it's incomplete, then it doesn't do anyone much good.  The Trump/GOP plan is to use any tiny amount of plausible deniability, no matter how tiny, to brush off issues with Trump as merely crazed rantings of the left.

 

Even if Mueller said something so far as "Our investigation indeed covered the President, was a counter-intelligence operation, made numerous suggestions as to actions to DOJ, and the DOJ has released an incomplete report and not taken those actions" that too would just be brushed off, unless the underlying stuff could be brought up too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Mueller says, "The report being distributed by the DOJ is incomplete. Seven hundred and ninety three acts of treasonous behavior have been forcibly removed from the document to create a false narrative. They have cobbled together a Devin Nunes fabrication which in some cases attempts to suppress the facts and in others attempts to paint a picture that shows the opposite of what actually happened."

Edited by Burgold

Share this post


Link to post
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.