Jump to content

scottsins

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1670
  • Joined

Everything posted by scottsins

  1. I believe that Twice is asserting (correctly, IMO), that THIS kind of “tough on crime” stance comes with a heavy dose of “pro-cop”.
  2. I haven’t read the whole thread, but THIS, especially given the fact that the call was placed to the NON-EMERGENCY number.
  3. Y’all posting up in an EMAW thread. Lulz.
  4. “Excoriated”...that’s a staff drafted tweet, 100%
  5. One time...Hillary gave Putin a “reset” button that was misspelled.
  6. Stole my post, verbatim. + Rep
  7. Those are federal charges so DOTUS does have pardon power, I think.
  8. If the state knew about drug dealing, regardless of convictions, that information would be turned over to the the defense under Brady/Giglio and the Morton Act. That said, the defense could have known and decided to just not use it. That’s highly likely, given what I know about this case, IMO.
  9. Sure. And then they can grandstand and fundraise based on defending Trump from persecution.
  10. NSIAP, but to me, the most striking thing about Pompeo’s comments is that he is explicitly describing and defending a “quid pro quo” discussion, which I’ve been told is NOT what this was.
  11. This is so ridiculous, because the justice reform credit IMMEDIATELY given in sincere way by Jones at the time is the ONE example that I point to to explain that the Clinton News Network doesn’t just rip Trump 100% of the time.
  12. You forgot “while citing zerohedge in a totally serious, non-ironic way.”
  13. This prank call story isn’t new and the stuff wasn’t just “dug up”. ETA: Also, the facts of what happened are totally benign.
  14. Double post.
  15. Can someone give the cliffs notes version of the basis of these “defamation” claims? I haven’t followed that particular part of this mess. That said, my hypothesis is that Schiff did NOT attribute false quotes/words to DOTUS. I would presume that Schiff was speaking about what logical inferences could be drawn from the call memo, etc., which is, of course not at all the same thing as “making up words and pretending that I said them when I didn’t”. How close am I?
  16. Sure, but the assertion you are denying came from zerohedge, which is the gold standard in credibility.
  17. What a vague worthless question to ask.
  18. You keep talking about the political pressure and how it *could* cause a significant GOP exodus. What I’m missing from your posts is the factual basis for believing that the GOP voters give a single solitary fuck about oaths, laws, ethics, fraud, etc.
  19. Wait. Your last paragraph, was that meant for me? The fuck? Where is my whataboutism in my post. I was telling the troll that there is an actual transcript, so lack of a recording does not necessitate relying on the bullshit memorandum.
  20. Still catching up with your nonsense. I’ll stop after this. You actually make a correct assertion! There is no “recording”. There IS, however, an actual transcript of the call. It’s locked in some super secret server, and STILL has not been released by the WH.
  21. Negged for either being too stupid to know what a simple word means or deliberate obfuscation. You pick. TRANSCRIPT.
  22. ^ Still pretending to not know what the English word “transcript” means.
  23. Lol. Now I know you’re not serious. You: But Obama investigated political rivals! Me: Maybe, but the big difference would be that he didn’t get help from a foreign government to do so. You: We get help from other countries for stuff all the time though! It’s the combination of the two that’s not “OK”. This is such a bizarre exchange to be having with an adult smart enough to use a computer/smart phone, which is a pretty low bar.
  24. Now you don’t know what “transcript” means. Are you for real or is this a bit?
  25. “Enlisting the aid of a foreign government” is the critical distinction here.” Did that honestly not occur to you?
×
×
  • Create New...