1. #81521
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    His "joke" about this was responded to with raucus applause and cheering.
    Well, you know what that means. Any Trump supporter on these forums is now hereby deemed to be in favor of threats of prison rape on journalists who protect their sources, unless they specifically say otherwise. I know that sounds unfair...to them, but they're the ones supporting someone who makes such claims, and the crowd was cheering suggesting the majority of his supporters do, in fact, support it.

    So, their choice. We just get to remind them they made that choice. Until, of course, they personally say "I comdemn Trump's call for using prison rape to expose journalist sources".

  2. #81522
    So, how can you tell that someone is paranoid and delusional? This is prime example number 1.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...72238fc7c9abb0

    Trump claims that 'the FBI paid people to "get Trump'" in paranoid late-night Truth Social rant

    Former President Donald Trump on Sunday night unleashed a paranoid rant about the 2020 election that included unsourced accusations about the FBI being out to get him.

    The former president was inspired to write about the 2020 election again after CBS's "60 Minutes" devoted a lengthy segment to the false claims made by Trump and his allies about Dominion Voting Systems, which has filed multiple defamation lawsuits after it was accused of conspiring with the late Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez of stealing the 2020 election.

    “'60 Minutes' is not a News Show, it is a Democrat propaganda machine," the twice-impeached former president wrote. "Their story last night on Election Fraud was a JOKE! The evidence is massive, not to even mention that State Legislatures did not grant necessary approvals, the FBI paid people to, essentially, 'get Trump,' and then told Facebook and others that the Laptop from Hell was Russian disinformation, when they knew it was not - and much more."

    Trump concluded his rant by attacking some of his own former administration officials for purportedly not doing enough to keep him in power even after he lost the election to President Joe Biden.

    "Barr, Krebs, and the rest of the RINO Establishment, should be ashamed of themselves," he fumed.

  3. #81523
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,746
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    "Barr...should be ashamed of themselves,"
    Man, the guy who hired him on purpose must really be regretting that decision. Can you imagine being the person who hired Barr, who turned out to be a do-nothing RINO and let Trump down? That guy, that poor pathetic guy, he must be so sad right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    “'60 Minutes' is not a News Show, it is a Democrat propaganda machine,"
    He said on the social media platform he started in which anyone who says anything negative about him is kicked off.

  4. #81524
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Man, the guy who hired him on purpose must really be regretting that decision. Can you imagine being the person who hired Barr, who turned out to be a do-nothing RINO and let Trump down? That guy, that poor pathetic guy, he must be so sad right now.
    He might be turning into the Angry Orange at any time.

  5. #81525
    https://archive.ph/HbYbp

    Eleven allies of and advisers to former president Donald Trump have been convicted or pleaded guilty in recent years to various offenses, with their total sentences nearing 30 years of imprisonment.
    Three decades of prison time for Trump allies. It sure does seem like this was a criminal enterprise!

  6. #81526
    This always amazes me about Trump. The extreme narcissism of this guy. People who follow it.

    Words of Trump from Woodwards interview tapes. Doe# anyone still doubt that Trump is a deeply mentally ill man with a severe narcissistic personality disorder?




    This may see like a crazy, word salad rant. Well it is. Yet, just look at his speeches and past history. Trump makes claims on everything he came up with this idea.
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  7. #81527
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    This always amazes me about Trump. The extreme narcissism of this guy. People who follow it.
    Speaking of:

    Counseling Trump Was a Professional ‘Death March,’ Ex-Adviser Testifies

    Yeah, yet another Trump employee crawls to the curb with bus tire marks on his back and criminal charges in his face.

    Asked by his lawyer about the personal impact of his relationship with the president, Mr. Barrack told the courtroom: “I’m sitting with all of you today.”

    Mr. Barrack is expected to testify Tuesday and part of Wednesday, when prosecutors said they will begin to cross-examine him. Judge Brian M. Cogan told the jury Monday it would likely get the case next week.

    Prosecutors say that, at the direction of the Emiratis, Mr. Barrack, 75, used his access to Mr. Trump — as a top donor to his campaign, the chairman of his inauguration and an informal adviser — to push policies they supported, and shared secret information with the country’s intelligence service.

    Mr. Barrack faces nine counts, including acting as an agent of a foreign government without notifying the attorney general, obstruction of justice and making false statements. Prosecutors say he repeatedly lied to F.B.I. agents when questioned in 2019 about his dealings with the Emirates, a constellation of oil-rich Arabian Gulf states.

    Mr. Barrack also found himself in a role that would become familiar: explaining Mr. Trump’s campaign talk, particularly his pledge of a “Muslim ban,” to worried foreign partners.

    Asked by his lawyer, Michael S. Schachter, if he knew Mr. Trump’s presidency would be “as divisive as it was,” Mr. Barrack said he thought his friend would eventually take on a moderate, “acceptable” tone: “I thought as soon as he was elected that he would just change,” he said.

    Mr. Barrack stepped down from his role as Colony’s executive chairman in March of 2021, several months before his arrest in this case. An activist investor had called for his departure in 2019, amid reports of investigations into Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee.

    Would he have been better off advising a different candidate, or none at all, Mr. Schachter wanted to know Monday.

    In hindsight, unquestionably,” Mr. Barrack said. Running a publicly traded company, “the owners of public shares vote with their feet,” he said. “With the continued drama that Trump found himself in,” his shareholders got upset.

    “For a public company, it’s just the death march.”
    Trump hasn't attacked Barrack yet, but (a) this article is only four hours old, and (b) Barrack is choosing his words to say "working for Trump was bad for me" and not "Trump was bad for me". It's a key distinction that will keep Trump's cultists sharing his jail cell from murdering him.

  8. #81528
    In the "no way is this not a conflict of interest" category...

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/supr...rand-jury.html
    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas temporarily blocks Sen. Graham’s subpoena from Georgia grand jury

    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday temporarily blocked a subpoena demanding testimony from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham from a Georgia grand jury investigating election interference by former President Donald Trump.

    The hold on the subpoena came three days after Graham’s attorneys asked Thomas to delay the senator’s appearance before the grand jury, which is investigating possible criminal interference in Georgia’s presidential election in 2020.

    On Thursday, a panel of judges on the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously rejected a request by Graham to temporarily block the subpoena, which calls for the senator to testify on Nov. 17 in an Atlanta courthouse.

    The appeals panel said Graham had failed to show he was likely to succeed on an appeal challenging the legality of the demand for his testimony. Last month, a federal district judge upheld the legality of the grand jury’s subpoena.

    The grand jury specifically is probing the actions of Trump and his allies, including Graham, who contacted state election officials and others on the heels of the election, which was won in that state and nationally by President Joe Biden.

    Trump pressured state officials to take actions that could have overturned Biden’s win, as part of a similar effort in other swing states whose losses by Trump ensured his defeat in the Electoral College. In an early January 2021 phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Trump urged him to “find” enough votes to erase Biden’s margin of victory.

    Thomas, who is responsible for emergency applications such as Graham’s issued out of the 11th Circuit, issued the hold on the subpoena on his own accord, without referring the question to the entire Supreme Court.

    The conservative justice said the subpoena would be delayed pending further order by Thomas or the Supreme Court. Two days before he issued the stay, Thomas told Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutors, who are presenting evidence to the grand jury, to respond by Thursday to Graham’s request for a stay of the subpoena.

    The stay will give more time for Graham’s lawyers and prosecutors to file briefs arguing whether the subpoena should be allowed to stand or not.

    Graham’s lawyer Donald McGahn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    A spokesman for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis declined to comment, saying prosecutors would respond to Graham’s application to the Supreme Court on Thursday, as ordered by Thomas.

    Graham has argued that the subpoena violates the U.S. Constitution’s speech and debate clause, which protects members of Congress from legal risk from their comments related to legislative business.

    He claims his call to Raffensperger after Election Day 2020 was part of a legislative inquiry.

    But the 11th Circuit panel in its ruling last week said that a federal district court judge had ordered that a Fulton County prosecutor could not question Graham about portions of the call that qualify as legislative activity.

    “As the court determined, there is significant dispute about whether his phone calls with Georgia election officials were legislative investigations at all,” the appeals court ruling said.

    Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisconsin, blasted Thomas on Twitter for blocking the subpoena, tying it to the justice’s wife Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, who had encouraged Trump White House officials and state legislators to overturn Biden’s victories in swing states.

    “Disgusting. Any other judge in the country would recuse,” Pocan tweeted, using the legal term for a judge declining to handle a case because of a conflict of interest, or other reasons.

    Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, tweeted, “Another day, another conflict of interest for Justice Thomas revealed.”

    “Add this to the laundry list of impeachable offenses he has committed. He has no business being on the Supreme Court, and no shame,” Schakowsky added.
    "The customer is always right" is a nice way of saying "I will put up with your bullshit as long as you pay me"

  9. #81529
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,746
    28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

    (a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
    (b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
    (1)Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
    (2)Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
    (3)Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
    (4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
    (5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
    (i)Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
    (ii)Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
    (iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
    (iv)Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
    Of course, nothing will happen -- SCOTUS will simply decide what Thomas did is okay. But he broke the law to do this.

  10. #81530
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge



    Of course, nothing will happen -- SCOTUS will simply decide what Thomas did is okay. But he broke the law to do this.
    Posted in Inserruction thread. Understand we have overlapping news.

    Hmm? I wonder if the prosecutors could appeal?

    I posted in other thread it is in the US Constitution that there might be an actual ruling or bullshit out, imo; that would have favored Graham. Yet Roberts letting Thomas rule is almost malpractice. Any judge, perhaps the 'Lib' would have ruled for Graham.
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  11. #81531
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Of course, nothing will happen -- SCOTUS will simply decide what Thomas did is okay. But he broke the law to do this.
    The ultimate arbiter over whether Thomas broke the law is the Supreme Court, including Thomas himself. And SCOTUS has absolutely no ethical standards to abide by or that they can be held to.


  12. #81532
    Bloodsail Admiral Tenris's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    Posted in Inserruction thread. Understand we have overlapping news.

    Hmm? I wonder if the prosecutors could appeal?

    I posted in other thread it is in the US Constitution that there might be an actual ruling or bullshit out, imo; that would have favored Graham. Yet Roberts letting Thomas rule is almost malpractice. Any judge, perhaps the 'Lib' would have ruled for Graham.
    It seems ridiculous to me that the judges are party based and it is all about party lines, surely the supreme judges should be non partisian and it should be about doing what is best for the nation and the people?

    Perfect example is the situation with Roe vs Wade which is beyond ridiculous. Do Americans agree with the party lines in the supreme court or think it is ridiculous too?
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Excuse me while I go and clear my sinuses loudly into a megaphone.

  13. #81533
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenris View Post
    It seems ridiculous to me that the judges are party based and it is all about party lines, surely the supreme judges should be non partisian and it should be about doing what is best for the nation and the people?
    Once upon a time that's how it was. And then conservatives started getting upset that they weren't getting the rulings they wanted so what was supposed to be the a-political judiciary became just another arm of whichever political party controls the White House and Senate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenris View Post
    Perfect example is the situation with Roe vs Wade which is beyond ridiculous. Do Americans agree with the party lines in the supreme court or think it is ridiculous too?
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/...toric-low.aspx

    No, the general consensus is that confidence in the SCOTUS is at historic lows thanks primarily to Republicans ratfucking the judiciary.

  14. #81534
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,746
    A quick legal double-header.

    One, Trump has abandoned the pointless pursuit of attorney-client privilege on the WH property he stole. Because, duh, WH property is never covered by that.

    The parties agree that these materials can be provided immediately to the government’s Case Team so that issues concerning executive privilege and the Presidential Records Act can be resolved
    Two, familiar name around these parts, Kash Patel, has changed his tune on the whole "Trump declassified materials" claim.

    Before, on a Breitbart interview:

    I was there with President Trump when he said 'We are declassifying this information,'
    After, under oath:

    I plead the Fifth
    Then there's this part:

    In response, prosecutors asked a top federal judge in Washington to force Mr. Patel to testify — a move fought by Mr. Patel’s lawyers, who are concerned the government wants to use Mr. Patel’s own statements to incriminate him. CNN reported on Thursday that Mr. Patel had appeared before a grand jury.
    Yeah, yet another Trump cultist who doesn't want to be held accountable for his words and actions.

    This seems like a stupid hill to die on. The WH has no record of Trump declassifying these items, because he didn't. Trump can't prove he declassified them, because he didn't. And from the looks of things, Patel isn't being accused of lying on Breitbart. He's accused of lying to the FBI. Which he did, and knows he did. His only way out is "Trump told me they were declassified and I believed him" because otherwise Patel -- whom Trump personally chose as a go-between between him and NARA -- has personally handled stolen classified documents, and the FBI has him on record doing that. And he's fucked.

    Patel strikes me as someone who joined Team Trump by pretending to be a true believer to further his own personal cause. Or, to use the correct term, "a Republican". I think he'll save his own skin over Trump's.

  15. #81535
    Elemental Lord Templar 331's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Waycross, GA
    Posts
    8,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenris View Post
    It seems ridiculous to me that the judges are party based and it is all about party lines, surely the supreme judges should be non partisian and it should be about doing what is best for the nation and the people?

    Should. Sadly it's political parties that see judges get to positions of power. And a certain political party would see this country come to a standstill and burn to the ground before allowing the other party to exercise it's right to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court.


    Perfect example is the situation with Roe vs Wade which is beyond ridiculous. Do Americans agree with the party lines in the supreme court or think it is ridiculous too?
    The sad part is that all these conservatives have to do is make enough of their following believe in this bullshit "my sports team" mentality with political parties that nothing will change. Even if a majority of us believe otherwise it is unlikely to change the damage that has been done. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this election will show that there's enough of us to make a change.

  16. #81536
    https://www.businessinsider.com/ted-...-looks-2022-10

    "I frankly don't know how you get over your wife being called ugly. I don't know how you get over those kinds of calumnies against your father," Navarro said. "But you obviously have gotten over it, today you sing a very different tune. So tell us: Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

    Cruz responded that he and Trump "beat the living crap out of each other" when they were both campaigning for the presidential nomination.

    "I tell you, Heidi laughed when he said that," Cruz said. "My father laughed, by the way — my dad didn't just kill Kennedy, he's got Jimmy Hoffa buried in the backyard. It was idiotic."
    Reminder for how Rafael Cruz responded at the time -

    In response to Trump's 2016 insult, Cruz hit back at Trump on Twitter, writing: "Donald, real men don't attack women. Your wife is lovely, and Heidi is the love of my life."
    Truly, Republicans are excited to be the ultimate beta-cucks.

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://twitter.com/zdroberts/status...33799698427904

    Proud Bois, or antifa? I honestly can't tell, they're all wearing black and wearing the same antifa-style black masks and everything.

    Responding to protesters protesting known white supremacist and man who shoved a dildo up his ass to prove he's not gay Gavin McCinnes, founder of the Proud Bois, his supporters asssaulted peaceful protesters by macing them and then scurrying like a little bitch behind police lines. Cops just let them run because we already know that law enforcement has a serious problem with their members also being members of extremist groups like this.

    But real, share this video without the signs and I bet you'd have a lot of conservatives thinking these are actually antifa and not "their guys".

    Fuck Penn State by the way. They can appeal to "Free Speach" all they want, doesn't make platforming a right wing extremist remotely acceptable.

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.npr.org/2022/10/25/11310...t-was-recalled

    Even True the Vote, the controversial election denial organization that executive produced the 2,000 Mules film, distanced themselves from the book. "True the Vote had no participation in this book, and has no knowledge of its contents," the group said in a statement to NPR back in September. "This includes any allegations of activities of any specific organizations made in the book. We made no such allegations."

    Now, D'Souza and Regnery have officially released the 2,000 Mules book, and changed that section.

    D'Souza had previously described left-wing nonprofits as "doing vote trafficking."

    The newly-released book tones down that phrase to "potentially storing ballots."

    And the names of specific nonprofits that D'Souza accused of election fraud have all been removed.

    Now, in lieu of listing specific groups, D'Souza writes, "True the Vote shared their names with me and has offered to make them available as needed to the appropriate law enforcement authorities."

    The New Georgia Project, a group that focuses on registering and mobilizing young voters and voters of color, was one of the groups named in the recalled book.

    "We're always happy when someone who has been discredited takes our name out of their mouths," said a New Georgia Project spokesperson in a message to NPR.

    Given the absence of evidence supporting the allegations, NPR is not naming the other groups cited in the recalled version of the book.
    That "unspecified publishing error" that held up pardoned felon Dinesh D'Souza's book?

    Apparently it largely seems to be backpedaling on allegations and removing specific groups names, presumably because the publisher realized that they'd likely be on the hook for any libel lawsuits. So it's a lot more vague and doesn't really mention any specific groups anymore.

    The book still does not in any way, shape, or form provide any actual evidence to back up their claims of widespread voter fraud.

  17. #81537
    Pandaren Monk masterhorus8's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.npr.org/2022/10/25/11310...t-was-recalled



    That "unspecified publishing error" that held up pardoned felon Dinesh D'Souza's book?

    Apparently it largely seems to be backpedaling on allegations and removing specific groups names, presumably because the publisher realized that they'd likely be on the hook for any libel lawsuits. So it's a lot more vague and doesn't really mention any specific groups anymore.

    The book still does not in any way, shape, or form provide any actual evidence to back up their claims of widespread voter fraud.
    We can find the book under the fiction section, yeah?
    9

  18. #81538
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    That "unspecified publishing error" that held up pardoned felon Dinesh D'Souza's book?

    Apparently it largely seems to be backpedaling on allegations
    "Oh, you meant those defamation lawsuits. I've suddenly decided to blame nameless, faceless individuals."

    - - - Updated - - -

    Burning a CNN point for this.

    DOJ overcomes Trump’s privilege wall in Jan 6. investigation, pushing deeper into former President’s inner circle

    Headline's not very helpful, but the key feature is:

    The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to force the top two lawyers from Donald Trump’s White House counsel’s office to testify about their conversations with the former President, as it tries to break through the privilege firewall Trump has used to avoid scrutiny of his actions on January 6, 2021, according to three people familiar with the investigation.

    The move to compel additional testimony from former White House counsel Pat Cipollone and deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin just last week is part of a set of secret court proceedings. Trump has been fighting to keep former advisers from testifying before a criminal grand jury about certain conversations, citing executive and attorney-client privileges to keep information confidential or slow down criminal investigators.
    Okay, so, we know there's a few things that will get through claims of lawyer-client privilege. Most of these would work on anyone else, too.

    1) The lawyer and client were committing a crime or conspiring to do so.
    2) The laywer witnessed other people committing a crime, clients or not.
    3) They weren't acting as a lawyer, for example, a WH laywer taking part in a campaign event, which are not WH activities even when the resident is running.
    4) They're sick of this shit and are volunteering, even if it costs them an ethics violation.

    Considering how much the pair have been delaying and that VP aides have recently testified voluntarily, I think they're being offered the choice between #2 and #3, or being thrown in with #1. I think they're being given their last chance to testify that, yes, Trump was doing illegal shit and knew it was illegal shit. Considering how many emails their names are on, if I'm right, the DOJ is being especially generous.

    Philbin's name isn't as big, so it's possible he'll have a way out. Cipollone's name is all over this and I think he's being offered the choice between five years and twenty.

    As a reminder, neither of these two can assert Executive Privilege. Quite frankly, neither can Trump. Biden already waived it. Yes, the pair are arguing that Biden shouldn't be allowed to do that, but then again, the DOj is part of the Executive Branch, so either way we get some interesting case law involved.

  19. #81539
    https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/25/polit...tee/index.html

    Ignore that this is Chris Cillizza, I have zero interest in his takes on this topic beyond being a single place to find all her comments.

    Kinda love it, and it's a great way to trigger a group that's absolutely obsessed with at least appearing strong and manly. Wonder if Trump's gonna get "cucked" by his lawyers and not testify : 3

    Edit: And also - https://cellularnews.com/mobile-phon...-is-it-a-hoax/

    Nobody noticed but Freedom Phones have been released. Apparently...yeah, it's absolutely not $500 worth of hardware because it's actually just a rebranded $120 phone made in China.

    Is it a phone? Yes! Does it make calls and text and connect to the internet? Yes! But that's about where things fall off a cliff and it becomes clear that there's no actual value proposition to the phone outside of something you can virtue signal with. It's got some open source apps you can get on other phones and...uh...it's called Freedom Phone!

    I wonder if anyone bought them?

    https://www.techdirt.com/2022/10/25/...rebranded-att/

    Because they might be able to use it on the new PureTalk mobile network that conservatives are moving over to so they can get away from "Woke AT&T who own CNN!" (they haven't owned CNN for a while).

    Fun fact though!

    PureTalk is just another MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) that runs over the AT&T network under different brand name, with most of the money being funneled back to AT&T
    They're still paying AT&T on the network they switched to so they could stop paying AT&T.

    It's like the theory of the universe where we're on the back of a turtle, that's standing on the back of another turtle, and it's turtles all the way down. Except it's grifters all the way down.
    Last edited by Edge-; 2022-10-26 at 01:17 AM.

  20. #81540
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    "Oh, you meant those defamation lawsuits. I've suddenly decided to blame nameless, faceless individuals."
    It's all about "them".



    And you should take D'Souza about as seriously as you take this movie, because he's less believable than this.


Posting Permissions

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