Jump to content

scottsins

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1669
  • Joined

Everything posted by scottsins

  1. Maybe he means that he did not assert executive privilege? I’m not sure exactly how all of that works. Also, did they actually testify, or just cooperate and sit down with:Mueller for interviews? I will point out again that he has not allowed himself to interview, so not sure what he is bragging about.
  2. Could you repost this comment in English, please?
  3. He should “allow” himself to fully cooperate and go sit down with Witch Hunt Bob.
  4. The fucking fuel to transport the military equipment that Trump requested would cost over 3 million dollars, by the way.
  5. That tweet is 100% incorrect. I’ve seen that exact chart or the information shown on it AT LEAST 100 trials. LOL. In fact, I have the exact chart in my office. Caveat: My statements can only be guaranteed accurate in Texas state courts.
  6. That lawyer is just bullshitting. Trying to read those tea leaves of juries is a fool’s errand at best.
  7. As astounding as questioning someone’s military service?
  8. This concept makes general sense. I think the use of the clearance for former officials has usually occurred when current officials seek advice/input from prior ones, to get their experience, perspective, etc. It’s not used as some carte blanche VIP all-access mechanism. To put your principle (which I generally agree with) into practice, it would be necessary to create some special expedited process for former officials. I say that because the thought of officials spending all kinds of time and effort to get an individual limited clearance before sharing stuff would be a clusterfuck, if they had to get a new one every time they wanted to seek advice and counsel from the former dudes.
  9. They can’t. They are suing (really taking her to binding arbitration). Author/article is sloppy AF.
  10. Is this supposed to be one sentence?
  11. Right, but the screaming threats at Jim Acosta at trump rallies are just fine.
  12. What government agency, rule or law is being used against Alex Jones? I ask because that’s the whole premise of the Atkinson video...speaking against a government imposed censorship, which doesn’t seem relevant to anything Alex Jones related.
  13. Fixed for accuracy
  14. So, in other words, you are just trolling, due to butthurt over criticism for starting too many separate threads? Dude. it shouldn’t have been posted in Politics at all, new thread or not.
  15. Sounds like something an international sex trafficker would say.
  16. Well, he wasn't blindfolded, and then taken to Ohio with no notice of where he was going to be all night, so WTF would the other states' #'s have to do with anything he should be aware, prepped and accurate about?
  17. What’s the current standard, as far as free streams of the PPV card? Is it still firstrowsports?
  18. Why are we not involving the Dilbert guy?!?
  19. Can someone point me to an explanation for why posters misspell “Amendment”? It has to be intentional. yeah. This post contributes nothing to this thread, but this thread is dogshit now anyway.
  20. Man, a discussion of the pros/cons of the LHN has been WAY overdue. Pos. Rep to the OP.
  21. I’m confused. Rudy deemed the tape exculpatory, because Trump was suggesting that the payment be by check, which someone wouldn’t do if they were trying to do something illegal or whatever.
  22. The guy that mows my yard had some individual taxpayer ID number that he used instead of an SSN, in order to report and pay income tax.
  23. The FBI wants Apple to “reconfigure” their software so that law enforcement can access locked phones. They want the change implemented broadly, NOT on some “as needed” individual basis.
  24. Isn’t the 2% requirement already agreed to, and only effective by 2024?
  25. How much does it cost to get them tailored?
×
×
  • Create New...