1. #80561
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    ."Trump is going to sue them for lying?"

    Well, he's Trump, so no, probably not. Also, remember how a few hours ago I pointed out the federal investigation that Trump telling his followers that the election was stolen, to get campaign contributions, that he kept for himself? Yeah, you can't sue someone for lying when there's an ongoing criminal investigation into their claims. Slander and libel require the accusation to be knowingly false. An ongoing criminal investigation defuses that.

    "The Lincoln Project must be responding with the same 'no comment' everyone else responds with."

    Then you don't know the Lincoln Project.



    Also...where will he find a lawyer?

    Holy shit, this is a gaping, bleeding, self-inflicted injury. I can't wait to hear what Hannity thinks about this!

    Just kidding. He'll pretend it never happened.
    Here is the full reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  2. #80562
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This is almost assuredly what happened. The Lincoln Project chased him around the country when he traveled doing exactly this.
    Lincoln Project vs. Trump.


  3. #80563
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,969
    I just realized I posted the "Bannon got indicted" stuff in the wrong thread. The charges are about the Wall, not Jan 6th.

    Bannon officially indicted.

    Bannon, 68, was indicted on charges including money laundering, scheming to defraud and conspiracy, according to a court filing unsealed Thursday morning.

    The six-count indictment also names the group WeBuildTheWall.Inc, which it says worked with Bannon on the scheme in 2019. Bannon was chair of the "advisory board" for the group, which prosecutors say duped thousands of donors by maintaining that all the money raised would go to building a wall along the southern border and not to the people running the effort.

    The group's president, Brian Kolfage, who is left unnamed in the indictment, pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from the scheme, the filing alleges. Some of the money was routed to him by Bannon, who had money from the campaign transferred to a nonprofit group under Bannon's control and then used that cash to pay Kolfage $140,000, the indictment alleges.
    That's money laundering. And NYState has copies of all the transfers. Bannon is objectively guilty.

    "Surely some payment to people running the charity is okay? Even the Red Cross pays people."

    Yes, but they also tell people that. Bannon lied about it.

    Prosecutors allege that Bannon was well aware the group was publicizing that Kolfage was telling donors "I’m taking zero dollars of a salary, no compensation," and that Bannon had echoed those claims himself.
    Lying to your investors is fraud. Lying to people donating to a nonprofit is fraud, and deplorable. What's next, stealing money from a cancer victim?

    As a reminder, while Bannon is claiming this is all a partisan hack job, I just so happen to have an Aug 20, 2020 article in which Bannon was charged by, yep, that'd be Trump's DoJ. So, his defense for being caught lying is another different lie. It was to those charges that his three co-conspirators pled guilty, and two of them are mentioned in the NYState filings.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    Here is the full reply.
    Wow, that's top grade taunting right there.

    Trump has no standing of course, he's a public figure and making fun of him is generally speaking okay. Besides the fact that he's a fat orange coward, and has a lot on his plate which is why he's so fat, and also has a lot of legal issues right now, I suspect that Trump couldn't go after the Lincoln Project without opening themselves up to some kind of consequence, possibly contempt charges or a countersuit. There is no path forwards here -- he has to accept the fact that he was ridiculed in public, blamed the wrong TV channel, and just put another check in the "L" column.

  4. #80564
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    The unfortunate matter in all of this (well, one of many) is that while upper-echelon people in the GOP who push the great “election stolen” or voter fraud lies knowing they’re lies, you’re average Joe Schmoe Republican absolutely believes them.
    I don't think this is true. I think it's worse than that. Going to link this again:

    "Democrats should try campaigning on the truth: The Republican Party is controlled by intelligent, college-educated, and affluent elites who concoct dangerous nonsense to paper over a bigoted, plutocratic agenda and to justify attacks on the democratic process. That agenda and those attacks are supported by millions of reasonably intelligent voters who will believe or claim to believe anything that furthers the objective of keeping conservatives in control of this country forever."

    They are willing--and in many cases eager--to take power they didn't legitimately win through violence and use the full force of the power of the state to punish all enemies, real or imagined. Any lie that gets them there will do. The principles are irrelevant; the truth is irrelevant. Repeating whatever the current lie is, together, over and over, to justify every anti-democratic action is all that matters.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  5. #80565
    https://www.npr.org/2022/09/08/11216...-npr-got-a-cop

    D'Souza's "2,000 Mules" book is out! Actually, it's not. The publisher pulled it from shelves (it's already in stores) and delayed the digital release.

    But NPR got a copy anyways.

    Yes, it's precisely filled with the kind of debunked conspiracy theories from the movies and does not actually provide any additional evidence absent from the film to support their baseless accusations.

  6. #80566
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    The publisher pulled it from shelves
    D'Souza's publisher, Regnery, abruptly pulled the book from shelves and delayed the e-book release, citing an unspecified "publishing error."
    My bet? The error is "we published a book filled with objective falsehoods and don't want to get sued".

  7. #80567
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    My bet? The error is "we published a book filled with objective falsehoods and don't want to get sued".
    Considering this line from the NPR report -

    The book does not appear to suffer from an obvious production error which might explain the delay; a misaligned photo, incorrect page numbers or blank pages.
    Yeah, probably. Finally opened the email from their legal team that read, "YOU CANNOT PUBLISH THIS UNLESS YOU WANT US TO QUIT BECAUSE WE WILL BE SUED TO HIGH HELL AND BACK." or something to that effect and panicked.

  8. #80568
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    I don't think this is true. I think it's worse than that. Going to link this again:

    "Democrats should try campaigning on the truth: The Republican Party is controlled by intelligent, college-educated, and affluent elites who concoct dangerous nonsense to paper over a bigoted, plutocratic agenda and to justify attacks on the democratic process. That agenda and those attacks are supported by millions of reasonably intelligent voters who will believe or claim to believe anything that furthers the objective of keeping conservatives in control of this country forever."

    They are willing--and in many cases eager--to take power they didn't legitimately win through violence and use the full force of the power of the state to punish all enemies, real or imagined. Any lie that gets them there will do. The principles are irrelevant; the truth is irrelevant. Repeating whatever the current lie is, together, over and over, to justify every anti-democratic action is all that matters.
    I suppose you’re right, so I’ll elucidate:

    Your average grunt conservatives either think these conspiracies are true or, like @tehdang know they’re not true and don’t care that the people they’re voting for and the people they’re voting alongside say that these conspiracies are true.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  9. #80569
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    I suppose you’re right, so I’ll elucidate:

    Your average grunt conservatives either think these conspiracies are true or, like @tehdang know they’re not true and don’t care that the people they’re voting for and the people they’re voting alongside say that these conspiracies are true.
    Agreed. 100%.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  10. #80570
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    D'Souza's "2,000 Mules" book is out! Actually, it's not.
    Perhaps the disappointed folks can read another book by another Trump employee. It's called "Holding the Line" and it's about how Trump pushed the DoJ to go after his critics.

    Wow, that sounds so familiar...oh right, it's the thing Trump, Bannon etc. are all saying is bad when it happens to them.

    A book by a former top federal prosecutor offers new details about how the Justice Department under President Donald J. Trump sought to use the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan to support Mr. Trump politically and pursue his critics — even pushing the office to open a criminal investigation of former secretary of state John Kerry.

    The prosecutor, Geoffrey S. Berman, was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York for two and a half years until June 2020, when Mr. Trump fired him after he refused a request to resign by Attorney General William P. Barr, who sought to replace him with an administration ally.

    A copy of Mr. Berman’s book, “Holding the Line,” was obtained by The New York Times before its scheduled publication Tuesday.

    The book paints a picture of Justice Department officials motivated by partisan concerns in pursuing investigations or blocking them; in weighing how forthright to be in court filings; and in shopping investigations to other prosecutors’ offices when the Southern District declined to act.

    The book contains accounts of how department officials tried to have allusions to Mr. Trump scrubbed from charging papers for Michael D. Cohen, his former personal lawyer, and how the attorney general later tried to have his conviction reversed. It tells of pressure to pursue Mr. Kerry, who had angered Mr. Trump by attempting to preserve the nuclear deal he had negotiated with Iran.

    And in September 2018, Mr. Berman writes, two months before the November midterms, a senior department official called Mr. Berman’s deputy, cited the Southern District’s recent prosecutions of two prominent Trump loyalists, and bluntly asserted that the office, which had been investigating Gregory B. Craig, a powerful Democratic lawyer, should charge him — and should do so before Election Day.

    “It’s time for you guys to even things out,” the official said, according to Mr. Berman.

    “Throughout my tenure as U.S. attorney,” Mr. Berman, 62, writes, “Trump’s Justice Department kept demanding that I use my office to aid them politically, and I kept declining — in ways just tactful enough to keep me from being fired.”

    “I walked this tightrope for two and a half years,” writes Mr. Berman, who is now in private practice. “Eventually, the rope snapped.”
    Now, it looks like the Trump supporters have a choice to make.

    One, they could say that baseless political prosecution is bad, and say Trump was wrong to do it himself.

    Two, they could say that this was acceptable behavior, and that the investigation into Trump for stealing government records must therefore continue with full force.

    Or three, they could try to say that this guy is lying, which will be handwaved until Trump literally sues for defamation. Until then, that third option is a baseless guess.

  11. #80571
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Laura Ingraham is a vapid whore.

    So we all know by now the WaPo story about Trump having nuclear secrets. FOX News had zero choice but to report on it as well.

    Here's their defense, apparently: FBI leaks are bad.

    "Wait, they didn't contradict the story?"

    No. FOX News couldn't go toe-to-toe in a credibility fight with the Washington Post on their best day. Instead, Ingraham said that the DoJ was trying to ruin Trump with these leaks, and--

    "Wait, isn't Trump ruining himself by committing these crimes? Isn't that the real problem?"

    In a sane world, yes. Also, Ingraham mocked the WaPo reporter with



    "Has Ingraham done any gumshoe reporting?"

    No.

    "Does Ingraham know that having solid sources is a big part of being a reporter? Did she forget that she and other FOX hosts called Trump during the riot?"

    It's a lot harder to be a hypocrite if you admit you're doing it.

    "Would a reporter, by doing 'gumshoe reporting' breaking into Mar-a-Lago and finding nuclear secrets be multiple crimes itself?"

    Yes.

    Remember, FOX News has no defense for Trump. This is admission of such. What they have is wishing we didn't have proof Trump is a lying felon traitor.
    Just like with the leaks about the SCOTUS decision of overturning Roe V Wade, the leak was more damning than taking away the rights of more than half the country.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    My bet? The error is "we published a book filled with objective falsehoods and don't want to get sued".
    Just like when they had to put a disclaimer on the bullshit movie about 2000 mules, because they couldn't prove anything.

  12. #80572
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I'm not sure what benefit the Republic is supposed to get out of this?
    Why, naturally, that advisors to the President may give him their full advice, making sure to give him the full a frank submissions of facts and opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Literally asked for men-on-men action, dude, this is not the place.
    Take it up with the poster that said someone literally was sucking Trump's cock.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    Nu-uh, that's not what I'm talking about and you know it, besides your rather biased and helpfully truncated reading of the aforementioned case as others have shown.

    Your idea that the former President has executive privilege specifically because not having it means his successor could publish document that makes him look bad.

    And that this gives leave to said former President to take documents for his own without going through proper channels, or any channel really besides putting things in a box and stashing them at his resort without telling anyone.

    Sauce please.
    I quoted you the Supreme Court case that decided the president's assertion of executive privilege does not expire at the end of his or her term. If you have a meaningful retort, please publish. Otherwise, this appears to be much of, "I know you're right, and Supreme Court president supports it, but there's other aspects of this case that I don't like notwithstanding that." I repeat again, this is about the investigative process, making sure to sequester documents subject to attorney-client or executive privilege. You shouldn't really post on "gives leave to said former President to take documents for his own," because that confesses a severe lack of distinguishing between FBI taint teams and ultimate indictment or trial. Investigators behaving badly is not the same as a final court decision on a criminal case. You can't use the latter to prove the former isn't happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    [I'm stunned/you're desperate]
    I don't see anything in your post responsive to DoJ misconduct. Nonetheless, I read and accept your sincere feelings on my criticism of the DoJ and FBI.

    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    LITERALLY WRONG. I gave you a fucking court case, from THIS YEAR, where Trump tried to claim executive privilege, about documents that weren't his but the office of the presidency, just like these documents, and you FUCKING IGNORED IT. Trump lost that case, he has no executive privilege.
    Re-read my post. I told you about the differences between documents responsive to an actual Congressional select committee and assertions of executive privilege. You should acknowledge the difference and respond considering the difference. I am not aware of a Mar-A-Lago Congressional select committee.

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    What do you think that case is saying here in these circumstances? What I mean is, what is your point in citing this case in these circumstances?
    Simply what it says. The privilege endures the president's tenure and can be asserted and tested in Court.

    Google and read the court decision if you need further information from the Supreme Court. I won't copy and paste the entire opinion. I would also ask you to google and read multiple articles if you need further details about what "attorney-client privilege" and "executive privilege" mean, as different from a judge evaluating and/or dismissing the claim, and as different from a FBI refusing to instruct its taint team to consider seized documents potentially protected by executive privilege. I think much of your confusion would be resolved by re-considering the difference between "The FBI refused to acknowledge the existence of potentially privileged documents" and "A future court decision might consider but reject the assertion of executive privilege over documents."
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  13. #80573
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,969
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Take it up with --
    Oh my God, why do you keep bringing up that you literally asked to see men sucking each other's dicks? Wrong thread, wrong fucking site, dude just stop.

    Besides:

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Now, it looks like the Trump supporters have a choice to make.

    One, they could say that baseless political prosecution is bad, and say Trump was wrong to do it himself.

    Two, they could say that this was acceptable behavior, and that the investigation into Trump for stealing government records must therefore continue with full force.

    Or three, they could try to say that this guy is lying, which will be handwaved until Trump literally sues for defamation. Until then, that third option is a baseless guess.
    You, a known Trump supporter, have a choice to make.

  14. #80574
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Why, naturally, that advisors to the President may give him their full advice, making sure to give him the full a frank submissions of facts and opinions.
    This talking point literally doesn't exist in reality, dude. Current POTUS determines privilege, and has access to documents from prior administrations. As has already been established, they can exert, or choose not to, privilege on documents from prior administrations.

    No POTUS has ever done what you claim would be done if former POTUS's didn't retain their ability to assert executive privilege, because again, that kind of mentality of "power over all" that's now a feature in the Republican party has not, and is not standard for anyone holding outside of Trump, so far.

    I noticed you didn't bother to engage with the rest of the post, including the links confirming that privilege can only be exerted by the current office holder, reminding people that no, former presidents do not retain any executive powers once they leave office.

    Maybe that's a bit too inconvenient for the arguments you're trying to make?

  15. #80575
    US DOJ will appeal the court order to appoint a Special Master.

    https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...NrqIiQWafbikAA

    For some reason, Kyle Griffin was very excited in his tweet and did all caps.

    So this goes to 11th Circuit of Appeals which I think is majority conservative and 5 of the 11 were Trump appointed. Of course after this is SCOTUS and I'm repeating myself after only a couple of pages, is this might become frightening them ruling that ex-Presidents have Executive Privilege to put simply.
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  16. #80576
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    So this goes to 11th Circuit of Appeals which I think is majority conservative and 5 of the 11 were Trump appointed. Of course after this is SCOTUS and I'm repeating myself after only a couple of pages, is this might become frightening them ruling that ex-Presidents have Executive Privilege to put simply.
    1) I hope the judges deciding on this are thinking ahead to President Harris leaving office. They would be setting precedent for her.
    2) Even Barr was against the decision. Getting one judge to sign on was lucky enough, he'd have to do it another 10 times. That's asking a lot.
    3) And again, the "special master" finding Executive Privilege documents still doesn't change the current investigation. It still would be WH property and Trump still can't have it.

  17. #80577
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...2hs&li=BBnbfcL

    Seriously, what's up with Republicans and weird as fuck analogies?

    Hershel Walker attempts to make a "grass is greener" analogy about Warnock for...some reason. But it's about a bull and six cows in a pen, with three of the cows expecting calves. Then the bull jumps a fence to get to three calves on the other side who...ended up also being bulls! And the bull cut his stomach jumping the fence.

    So what's why we should all just be happy with what we have and come together rather than try to improve things, somewhat.

    Again, Republican analogies are fucking weird.

  18. #80578
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    it's about a bull and six cows in a pen
    As a tauren, I find this offensive. Somone should ask Nunes' cow for another opinion.

  19. #80579
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...2hs&li=BBnbfcL

    Seriously, what's up with Republicans and weird as fuck analogies?

    Hershel Walker attempts to make a "grass is greener" analogy about Warnock for...some reason. But it's about a bull and six cows in a pen, with three of the cows expecting calves. Then the bull jumps a fence to get to three calves on the other side who...ended up also being bulls! And the bull cut his stomach jumping the fence.

    So what's why we should all just be happy with what we have and come together rather than try to improve things, somewhat.

    Again, Republican analogies are fucking weird.
    "Man subjected to many head injuries for money mixes up metaphors like his orange senpai."
    The story writes itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  20. #80580
    https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/0...-governor.html

    Reminder: Never. Trust. Trump.

    TLDR: Trump posted a photo of himself and dozens of uniformed PA State Police troopers on his social media site.

    Problem is, the picture was supposed to be private.

    Because there appears to be department policy regarding needing prior authorization for uniformed officers to participate in political events like this.

    The governor is now calling for an investigation.

    Never. Trust. Trump.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •