Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!


DireWolfSpirit

Recommended Posts

Witness tampering, lying to Congress, obstructing justice.

Apparently the prosecutors throughout the trial said this was all about Trump, and Stone trying to protect him.

Also, note that Trump in his written answers to Mueller said he didn’t recall any of the multiple conversations Stone had with Trump that were discussed in the trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gorn said:

Well, the attacks aren't exactly without a good cause:

Broader (and funny) text by Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/deval-patrick-finance-friendly-democratic-candidate.html

Bailing out another mortgage company kind of wipes out whatever good he supposedly did for 'the Cause' as the entire mortgage ponzi corruption plunder scheme that the taxpayers bailed the too big to fails out of caused so many African Americans to lose their homes and everything else.

Really, fool me twice? Just coz Obama likes / liked him?  Look at who Clinton hung / hangs out with / likes / liked . . . .

~~~~~~

In the meantime, witness intimidation in broad twitter public by the bedbug.  One rather expects Schiff, Pelosi and others rather expected him to get around to doing such a thing during this sham process that he's not even watching because his widdle handsie hands just can't be kept to themselves, can they.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Zorral said:

In the meantime, witness intimidation in broad twitter public by the bedbug.  One rather expects Schiff, Pelosi and others rather expected him to get around to doing such a thing during this sham process that he's not even watching because his widdle handsie hands just can't be kept to themselves, can they.

Wait, whut?!  How can it be witness intimidation when Trump didn't literally include "I'm trying to intimidate the witness" before his twitter attack?:rolleyes: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the meantime, Pete Buttigeig got a bunch of 'endorsements' for his 'Douglass Plan for Black America'... which turned out to be his campaign sending an email to a bunch of prominent figures and demanding they opt out by a certain date or they'd be included as endorsing.
 



What a fucking arsehole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Why is Stone's sentencing not until Feb 6?  What could the court be doing that requires 2 and a half months?

Is this unusual these days? Don't many judges now want psychological evaluations and other data presented to them about a defendant before they hand out a sentence? Getting those evaluations done doesn't happen overnight. 12 weeks doesn't seem outlandish to me for scheduling evaluations and analysis and giving the judge time for some deliberation after reading those. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Is this unusual these days? Don't many judges now want psychological evaluations and other data presented to them about a defendant before they hand out a sentence? Getting those evaluations done doesn't happen overnight. 12 weeks doesn't seem outlandish to me for scheduling evaluations and analysis and giving the judge time for some deliberation after reading those. 

Plus most judges have so many other cases they need to hear that it takes time for a matter to get back on their schedules again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These rethugs bludgeoning-bullying her with a spew of words are left with her reasonable response, "Is there a question in there?" given in such a soft, polite voice.

Taken aback, time goes by while the rethug bedbug tries to figure out what he was asking, what point he was trying to make.

What flat-out ignoramuses.  As well as bullies.

Additionally, those who wanted some dramatic interest, there sure does seem to be quite a bit today.  Yup, he smeared her, threatened her and lied about her, and is doing so even as she speaks in response to the idiocies spewed at her.

The Dems, of course, are so measured and polite.

Gads how many women have we seen grilled for hours and hours by all these old white insane guys, all of whom turn out not guilty of anything they are accused of.  Hillary, while campaigning, for 13 hours -- on her feet!  And they never lose it, stay in control, while all around them are saliva-spitting spewers, all day, one after another, who also, btw, are sitting down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More reasons the stupid Dem donor class should be smarter than this:

Quote

"Deval Patrick Ousted Officials Who Wanted His Brother-In-Law To Register As A Sex Offender
Three years later, the man in question raped his own wife again and is now behind bars."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/deval-patrick-sex-offender-brother-in-law_n_5dcebc2ee4b0d2e79f8badae

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plot thickens:

Quote

David Holmes, the state department aide who overheard President Donald Trump's conversation with the US ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, said that Sondland told Trump that the Ukranian President would do "anything you ask him to," and that he confirmed the Ukrainians were going to "do the investigation."

"Sondland told Trump that (Ukrainian President Volodymyr) Zelensky 'loves your ass,'" Holmes said, according to a copy of his opening statement obtained by CNN. "I then heard President Trump ask, 'So, he's gonna do the investigation?' Ambassador Sondland replied that 'he's gonna do it,' adding that President Zelensky will do 'anything you ask him to.'"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/holmes-testimony-sondland-call/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Why is Stone's sentencing not until Feb 6?  What could the court be doing that requires 2 and a half months?

Giving him time to have his Nixon tattoo removed? I hate to think what that would trigger when he is in the communal shower in prison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

These rethugs bludgeoning-bullying her with a spew of words are left with her reasonable response, "Is there a question in there?" given in such a soft, polite voice.

Taken aback, time goes by while the rethug bedbug tries to figure out what he was asking, what point he was trying to make.

What flat-out ignoramuses.  As well as bullies.

Additionally, those who wanted some dramatic interest, there sure does seem to be quite a bit today.  Yup, he smeared her, threatened her and lied about her, and is doing so even as she speaks in response to the idiocies spewed at her.

The Dems, of course, are so measured and polite.

Gads how many women have we seen grilled for hours and hours by all these old white insane guys, all of whom turn out not guilty of anything they are accused of.  Hillary, while campaigning, for 13 hours -- on her feet!  And they never lose it, stay in control, while all around them are saliva-spitting spewers, all day, one after another, who also, btw, are sitting down.

Heard this part on the drive home today (was it Jordan?) Would have been funny if Nunes and Jordan weren't such gross bootlickers.  Nunes reading that phonecall like it was THE phone call.  His whole opening statement.  nutZ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading the state department aide David Holmes' statement to the house committee and I one hundred percent did not expect Jay Leno's name to pop up in the statement. And also the Kardashians.

( Holmes is the dude who heard Sondland's call to Trump. The statement also includes Sondland, Perry & Volker calling themselves 'the three amigos')

This stuff is so strange & quite damning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2019 at 4:01 AM, DMC said:

Don't like making this comparison because it's not just race, but Patrick is essentially a repeat of Booker but he was a governor instead of a senator and has more direct ties to those dastardly rich people.  

Booker has ten times the charisma of Deval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the impeachment hearings go on - this time featuring a budget official:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/impeachment-investigators-question-budget-official-about-withheld-aid/ar-BBWRFYl?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

Why precisely Mr. Trump withheld the congressionally allocated funding in mid-July as he pressed Ukraine for politically beneficial investigations and what his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, told the agency about the decision remain central unanswered questions in the inquiry.

 

Democrats leading the proceedings hope that the budget official, Mark Sandy, can at least offer a glimpse into deliberations at the Office of Management and Budget over carrying out the order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...