The Department of Justice's (DOJ) inspector general formally announced Wednesday that he will launch a separate investigation into the DOJ's handling of a surveillance warrant application for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
The inquiry comes "in response to requests from the attorney general and members of Congress," according to the statement from Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
Conservatives for weeks have trumpeted allegations that the DOJ and the FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), detailed in a controversial memo authored by staff for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). The allegations were also detailed in a separate criminal referral made by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
Broadly, the GOP lawmakers believe that officials inappropriately used a controversial piece of opposition research into then-candidate Donald Trump to obtain a politically-motivated warrant on Page.
President Birther has disappeared since the 60 Minutes story.
Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's own need to think.
Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's own need to think.
The former head of President Donald Trump's legal team discussed the idea of pardoning two of the president's former top advisors with their lawyers, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
The Times, citing three people with knowledge of the discussions, reported that the topic was broached last year by Trump's lawyer John Dowd in talks with lawyers for former national security advisor Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort.
Both men were charged with crimes as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of potential links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump has regularly denied any collusion between his campaign and Russia, and some of his recent statements have raised concerns that he is preparing to fire Mueller.
Asked about the president's views on his power to pardon at a White House briefing on Wednesday, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, "There would be no reason for me to have had a conversation with the president about that, because that is not being currently discussed at the White House."
But Dowd reportedly raised the prospect of pardoning the two former officials last summer, shortly after he joined Trump's legal team, the Times reported.
Dowd reportedly told Flynn's lawyer that Trump was prepared to pardon Flynn on the basis that he believed the case against his former top advisor was flimsy.
Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to investigators about contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Manafort, however, pleaded not guilty to dozens of counts levied against him in multiple indictments.
In a statement to NBC News, White House lawyer Ty Cobb said, "I have only been asked about pardons by the press and have routinely responded on the record that no pardons are under discussion or under consideration at the White House."
Cobb did not immediately respond to CNBC when asked if he was aware of Dowd's conversations at the time.
The special counsel's office declined to comment on the newspaper's report. Dowd did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.
Not one of the denials state that the President denies the charges. They are always statements of "The White House", not the President
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. The 14th Amendment changed a portion of Article I, Section 2. A portion of the 14th Amendment was changed by the 26th Amendment
SECTION 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States , or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
SECTION 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
SECTION 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
SECTION 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
The President has given aid and comfort to Vladimir Putin, a sworn enemy of the United States.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. The 14th Amendment changed a portion of Article I, Section 2. A portion of the 14th Amendment was changed by the 26th Amendment
and posted without comment. meaning you post shit you could not possibly understand.
The President has given aid and comfort to Vladimir Putin, a sworn enemy of the United States.
1. The president hasn't given aid and comfort to Putin. That is a fantasy created by you fevered TDS mind.
2. Putin is not officially an enemy of the United States for that you would need a declaration of was or a least a resolution of hostilities against Russia.
I think we can ALL understand why CH unfriended and blocked him on Facebook.
Other than you, loser loretta the loathsome lesbian, who gives a fuck?????? Seems to me being on Facebook has led you and others to copious amount of russian fake news stories that you embrace...glad I can say I have never visited or signed onto that POS site like you do.....LOL
Roger Amick said... The president hasn't given aid and comfort to Putin. That is a fantasy created by you fevered TDS mind.
The President ignored advice from his political advisers who said: DO NOT CONGRATULATE PUTIN FOR HIS ELECTION VICTORY.</b.
you count a fleeting telephone congratulations as "aid and comfort?"
well, of course you do. you're still obsessed with trump's inaugural crowd size for chrissakes.
oh, and btw alky -
ronald reagan ignored the advice of his advisors who advised him to not include the words "mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall" in his speech at the brandenburg gate.
so put your big boy pants on and go find something of substance to criticize trump for.
russia and a crusty old cum dumpster just don't seem to have the impact you wish they would.
Loretta you do not have a clue that I feel about my brother. A an appointment for X-ray of my are back on April Fifth. I will fly to Billings Montana and spend a few days there with my brother perhaps the last time.
He had melanoma last August. They aggressively treated him, and they thought they had stopped it. He has a tumor in his brain. The doctors used radiation therapy to treat the tumor. They said it had not been effective. He has declined further treatments on the doctors comments. He has up to six months on the outside.
You have no idea how much this hurts. My first memory was the day he came home after his birth. I was not quite three years old.
Putin is not officially an enemy of the United States for that you would need a declaration of was or a least a resolution of hostilities against Russia.
exactly.
i mean, 0linsky called. he wants his dismissive russia foreign policy back.
Blogger Roger Amick said... Comparing Trump to Reagan will cause him to roll in his grave
it wasn't a comparison, rog. simply something noted by james baker in response to andrea mitchell's childish snark in a recent interview. it illustrates the fact that sometimes presidents overrule their advisors. because they can.
Mitchell consistently tried to bait Baker into attacking Trump, suggesting that Trump was too hasty in agreeing to meet with North Korea and was wrong to congratulate Russian president Vladimir Putin on his recent electoral victory.
“The president on one hand, a week ago, congratulates Vladimir Putin on a sham election in contradiction to his own advice being written in big, bold, capital letters,” Mitchell said. “And doesn’t bring up the fact that the Kremlin tried to kill a former Russian spy and his daughter on English soil.”
“Then, a week later, we’re expelling more spies than at any time since the Cold War,” she concluded.
Baker, who served as secretary of state under George HW Bush and chief of staff for Ronald Reagan, opted not to bash Trump for his decision to congratulate Putin.
“I think there could be an improvement in this White House with message discipline, needless to say,” he started, before reminding Andrea Mitchell that Ronald Reagan’s aides did not want him to say “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall” during the Cold War.
“He said, ‘look, I’m president and this is what I’m going to say,’ and he wrote it back in the speech,” Baker recalled. “So that turned out alright.”
if only you could impeach a President for legal actions that he never actually did, then the rumors that Pardons were discussed would mean something.
As it is:
1) Pardons are legal 2) I would be shocked if the possibility wasn't discussed 3) There isn't any actual proof that they were 4) He hasn't actually pardoned anyone.
U.S. filings for unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell last week to the lowest level since January 1973, further evidence that the labor market remains tight, Labor Department figures showed Thursday.
PBS Travis Smiley talking about "The Lost Years. Eight years into Barack Obama’s presidency, Tavis Smiley is not so optimistic about the first black president’s legacy on racial issues.
In a conversation with HuffPost Live, the talk show host lamented the lack of economic progress amongst black Americans since Obama entered office. While dissipating black affluence can’t be completely blamed on Obama, 2009 marked a huge drop in black wealth, which widened the ever-lopsided wealth ratios between blacks and whites in the U.S.. Sadly — and it pains me to say this — over the last decade, black folk, in the era of Obama, have lost ground in every major economic category,” Smiley told host Alyona Minkovski.
Despite the tough times, the talk show host said that African Americans have remained optimistic and have even been “too deferential” to the commander-in-chief:"
Our loathsome loser lesbian loretta the fake and fraud again proves she is not who she says she is sith
*whomever, Denny.
Good one grammarian asshole.Another who gives a fuck correction....LOL...You do not exist, so I will go into my I don't give a fuck what you post mode and just mock you like the idiot you are....
This matters because it's an attempt to block justice. By giving pardons to purchase their silence.
ok sport, please provide the evidence that any pardon issued to manafort, et. al. will require a gag order on the part of the pardonee in exchange for the pardon.
we'll wait.
i mean, you're making a very bold claim. i must assume that you have incontrovertible evidence to back it up. so please share.
Roger just assumes that if Trump wakes up in the morning, it must involve some sort of crime. So the idea that a Pardon can be assumed to be corrupt is just an offshoot of the TDS.
And another compelling Fox source that becomes the root of another round of nothing.....from the cali BS link..
enough to warrant the appointment of an independent investigator to look at whether or not the Obama White House was involved [in the Trump-Russia investigation],” a GOP congressional source told Fox News.
Wow, an congressional un named source, something you all constantly bemoan about the times or post using the same type of source...Hypocrite is your middle name...
btw rog, regarding the pardons that are keeping you up at night, remember that mueller collaborated with my NY AG eric schneedledick, to ensure manafort, et. al. are also charged in NYS rendering them out of reach of a full pardon.
The loathsome loser lesbian fraud alleges that "You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL,,,,
For an old hag and fraud, even that is getting tiresome lesbo... Don't you have something else to do, like making dinner and washing some skid marked underwear ??? Idiot
Anonymous caliphate4vr said... Weaponizing the federal government against the citizenry is not what I would call "rational policy"
it is if you're in favor of it.
i have yet to see a liberal criticize the weaponization of the IRS or the unconstitutionality of 0lisnky's unilateral pen and phone behavior. members of the house, specifically members of the congressional black caucus, not only cheered 0linsky's actions, they advocated for giving him even MORE executive power.
A former FBI agent in Minnesota was motivated to leak classified information to The Intercept website, in part, because he is black. That’s according to lawyers for Terry James Albury, a former special agent who was charged in the leak case on Wednesday.
The consumer comfort index held unchanged at 56.8 in the March 25 week and only 2 tenths shy of a record. This year's tax-cut boost and continuing strength in the labor market are big pluses for consumer confidence." Liberal Bloomberg News.
The tax cuts that the left here gladly pocket, yet 100% of the Dems voted against in DC.
Anonymous wphamilton said... "Weaponizing the federal government against the citizenry" - not everyone uncritically accepts the smear-campaign buzzwords like this.
true.
i'm sure lois lerner and john koskinen have a problem with it.
Consumer sentiment held strong the last two weeks of the month as the final March index came in at a 14-year high of 101.4 vs 102.0 in the mid-month reading and well up from 99.7 in February."
as i knew she would. i'll bet she received a phone call directing her to do so.
in this case i'm disappointed that she went after the rotten little shit. it's a no win situation. they can run their mouths in the most vile way imaginable, but call them out on it and you're picking on a child.
laura's a smart person. she should've seen this coming and skipped the whole thing.
#walkforourLies. 90 percent retread hippies, pussyhat, snowflakes and occupy Wallstreet with a heavy does repeal the 2nd Amendment. 10 youth 18 and under. Total mob count 125 k.
#walkforourLies. 90 percent retread hippies, pussyhat, snowflakes and occupy Wallstreet with a heavy does repeal the 2nd Amendment. 10 youth 18 and under. Total mob count 125 k.
Rat the gigantic asshole postulates that.. , camera hogg is encouraging an ingraham advertiser boycott.
Guess what, a bunch pulled out and got the first time, adams apple laura apologized to the punk who punked her....Kid has a big set, certainly bigger than yours, rat, the chicken shit poster....Kid 1, rathole and laura zippo
Total mob count 125 k. Once again you just make shit up....
March for Our Lives crowd size: Estimated 200,000 people ... www.cbsnews.com/news/march-for-our-lives-crowd-size... The peak crowd size was 202,796 people, with a margin of error of 15 percent, reaching its largest size at 1 p.m.
Maybe even bigger than the january trump crowd....
I knew that would grab your testicles...such an easy troll....and test, that was my post and yes it flew over your short statured head...
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
. The average age of the adults in the crowd was just under 49 years old, which is older than participants at the other marches I’ve surveyed but similar to the age of the average participant at the Million Moms March in 2000, which was also about gun control.
And the fat head of georgia can't read either. My sure asshole comment concerned a statement about 90% hippies.... Gee, Paulies link proved that with the average age of crowd being under 49. Don't know any hippie under 49 asshole, But thanx for proving my post, Pauline. Your zeal trying to prove me wrong again bit you and gigantic asshole rat where the sun don't shine....Good going Paulie as I bask in your stupidity....
Which is exactly what I said sure about...do you work at being this stupid or is it inbreeding????? Again you should give up before looking any dumber than this.....LOLOLOL
CH won't apologies to the 4.2 GPA student like a Faux News host.
NEWS Search The Web Search Aol.com
AdChoices Fox News host mocks Fla. school shooting survivor Business InsiderBryan LoganMar 29th 2018 10:55AM
Laura Ingraham, a Fox News opinion host, made what some have interpreted as a snide comment about David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland school shooting. Ingraham tweeted a link to a news article about Hogg having received some college rejection letters. She tweeted the article's headline, "David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied," adding "and whines about it" at the end. Hogg is now urging people to boycott Ingraham's advertisers,
David Hogg, a Parkland school shooting survivor who has become one of the prominent voices for gun control, is now going after a conservative talk-show host's advertisers after she made light of his college-rejection letters.
Laura Ingraham, a Fox News opinion host, tweeted a link to a news article about Hogg having received rejection letters from several University of California schools.
"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied," the article's headline read, "and whines about it," Ingraham added.
AdChoices That tweet went out to Ingraham's 2.2 million Twitter followers Wednesday morning and made its way back to Hogg nearly 10 hours later: "Soooo @IngrahamAngle what are your biggest advertisers ... Asking for a friend," Hogg wrote, with the hashtag, "BoycottingIngramAdverts."
Slideshow preview image 14 PHOTOS Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg SEE GALLERY Later, he tweeted a list of companies and urged his followers to contact them. It was not immediately clear which, if any, of the companies are current Ingraham advertisers. The boycott resembles campaigns that targeted Fox opinion hosts Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, who was forced off the network amid a sexual-harassment scandal last year.
Hogg, and other vocal survivors of gun violence, are among those leading renewed efforts to promote gun-law reforms after the February 14 shooting at Majory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed.
Students, parents, teachers, and other supporters flooded the streets in Washington, DC and all over the world last week for the "March for Our Lives" protest.
really? you've achieved immortality, alky? well good for you. although i think at some point you'll be disappointed in your outcome.
seriously, anyone who's been a regular on this blog has witnessed me telling you on countless occasions that i don't give a fuck one way or the other. however, having you around to mock and ridicule is entertaining.
so good luck in your quest to live forever, alky. it's doubtful that you will, but you've been lying to yourself for decades, so one more self inflicted falsehood really shouldn't matter at this point.
passport monkey and Alky party on the workers dime, unless alky is unaware that the money is not their's and that the term he used means to party with music and a lot of friends????????????????
"seriously, anyone who's been a regular on this blog has witnessed me telling you on countless occasions that i don't give a fuck one way or the other"
Blogger KD said... Add what your passport wife has bilked and your north of $2,000,000.00.
i'm old enough to remember when - if you were suckling on the public tit you were very self aware and the situation came with a certain level of shame. or at least you didn't publicly revel in it.
nowadays being a blood sucking parasite has become a source of pride for folks like the alky.
weird.
i guess self esteem just isn't what it used to be.
17 year old kicks Laura's ass as her head firmly buried in the sand box of stupidity....great job!!!
All day Thursday, Laura Ingraham weathered an advertiser exodus spearheaded by Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg. But you wouldn’t have known it from watching Thursday’s episode of her Fox News show.
Ingraham, who was roundly criticized for publicly mocking Hogg after he was rejected by several California colleges, didn’t address the boycott that, as of her airtime, saw at least eight advertisers cut ties. She also didn’t follow up on the apology she tweeted out earlier in the day.
Typical R....msybe it will just go away....not this time...
You should take your own advice when you use smear-campaign buzzwords like that to describe Trump and his Administration?
When I do smear Trump with some buzzword, and I DO think he's a criminal-minded self-absorbed boob - I don't allege that it's some kind of universally accepted fact.
You'll note that I said "not everyone agrees", and NOT "that's a lie" or the common variants thereof. So yeah, I do "follow my own advice" in this regard.
That's exactly what you did when you decided on the other thread that a "Reasonable Person Standard" could be used because you deemed that specific political rhetoric that you used about Trump could be considered fact.
The truth is that any "Reasonable Person Standard" that requires we consider an opinion about the President and his potential actions... is almost assuredly going to result in "reasonable people" venomously disagreeing.
In fact, I might suggest that the very idea of bringing Trump into any arguments turns many reasonable people unreasonable.
That's exactly what you did when you decided on the other thread that a "Reasonable Person Standard" could be used because you deemed that specific political rhetoric that you used about Trump could be considered fact.
You didn't get it then, and obviously you don't understand it now. You seem to labor under the misconception that my saying that a court would use that standard is tantamount saying that it convicts Trump.
I told you that a court case will ultimately come down to that. I didn't tell you one way or other how I thought a court would decide - just that they will have to consider it against that standard.
You've lost the thread here CH. Anything anyone says to you is, in your mind, anti-Trump somehow.
I don't understand your assertion that the courts would ignore the statistics regarding the existing Census Bureau questionnaires that have included and/or not included the citizen question.
Other than protest the idea that the Census Bureau would actually be able to track that information (or accuse me of making up the concept that they would)... You still have not offered why the Courts would ignore the data and use some hypothetical guess to come to their conclusion?
We obviously don't know what that data will show. The person who wrote the article made his claims, which may be correct or may be incorrect. But I think it's fairly reasonable to suggest that a Court could look at this information and make a fair determination (based on statistics) rather than decide to take a "guess" based on a reasonable person standard
(or would it be specifically a reasonable illegal alien standard as the general reasonable person would have no reason to not answer the question?)
Is it really your overall assertion that our court system should stop trying to be a fact based system, using facts, precedent, evidence, and objectively when at all possible?
Because it seems like you prefer to make any excuse for any particular Judge to allow his/her personal opinion to become the overriding factor in their decision making?
I guess I have always seen the courts as the one place where we try to maintain objectivity and make every effort to take out subjectivity whenever possible?
1. You should stop vaguely citing "statistics" and "tangible evidence" that you cannot provide. Nor even reference specifically.
2. Courts don't pick and choose what "standard" they want to use to settle a question.
3. You sound like you've never heard of the idea. In law the "reasonable person" is a hypothetical average person. Usually you'd see it in something like a negligence prosecution. But the law needs a shorthand reference to an average, reasonable person.
5. It is objectively reasonable to expect recent immigrants, in light of recent high profile federal operations and people being deported when previous governments were accepting of them, to be be fearful of government agents wanting to know their citizenship status. A court addressing this Census issue is going to have to examine that statement, one way or the other.
CH why do you want the Census to UNDERCOUNT non-citizens, if your goal is addressing illegal immigration?
Supplemental surveys (AFTER and apart from the 10-year apportionment survey) have long been used to determine the under-count. Those who, for some reason or another, declined to participate. Therefore, imposing those questions on the decennial enumeration survey will serve to *reduce* the numbers responding as opposed to utilizing a post-Census sampling survey as I proposed. It's because you don't care about that - all you want is for the total number to be lowered because those populations vote for Democrats.
This was the case regarding sampling methods. It determined that sampling could not be used for population apportionment. The argument would appear (tangibly) to be the opposite of what you are arguing.
In order for the party to have standing, they needed to show proof that the sampling would in fact devalue their census count.
The Courts determined that there was undoubtedly a "traceable" connection between the use of sampling in the decennial census and Indiana's expected loss of a Representative.
All of this was a the court "rejecting" the concept of a sampling method, or any sort of best guess... and basically demanding that a full census be taken in order to provide the clearest indication of who lived there.
Seems to me that the court is showing a preponderance to the idea of a full census count as being the most accurate. I didn't in either in this case, or in any of the referenced case see any reference what-so-ever to any sort of Reasonable person standard.
Entirely the opposite appears to be true. The court wanted a full count to garner the most reliable information.
You are still back to square one, WP.
_____
The current case is not about "undercounting from sampling" (although I think you know that). It's about participation rates. What you need to find is court precedent that suggests that a State can sue due to their "fear" of a lower participation rate.
You must also accept the fact that this particular census question was part of our census taking up until 1950 and was considered a perfectly legal question. If it was perfectly legal in 1950, why is it not legal in 2020? It seems like more of the same "Donald Trump" legal standard, where some prefer to simply see the law differently because they don't like the President.
You must also accept the fact that the census bureau does not (and cannot legally) share this data to any other department (including immigration or customs) by law.
____
Lastly, have you thought about the equal protection concept of all of this?
There are a myriad of questions that people do not want to answer based on the idea that they don't want the Federal Government to know certain information about themselves. We already know that many Americans refuse to take the census because they don't want to provide certain information.
What makes the illegal aliens special here? Under the equal protection, every citizen (or is it person) needs to be treated the same.
If you remove a question because illegal aliens are offended by it, should you not then be obligated to remove any other question that might produce a lower participation of other groups for the same reason? Are you not opening up a whole big can of worms by catering to one particular group of people...
especially considering you pretty much admit that there is no empirical evidence to back the underlying claim in the suit?
This was the case regarding sampling methods. It determined that sampling could not be used for population apportionment. The argument would appear (tangibly) to be the opposite of what you are arguing.
You are unresponsive to the actual arguments, so I believe that you are unaware of what my arguments are.
You must also accept the fact that this particular census question was part of our census taking up until 1950 and was considered a perfectly legal question. If it was perfectly legal in 1950,
I believe that you are unaware of what my arguments are.
Correct. I am not sure anyone at this point could know.
You stated that it was a "reasonable person" case and then provided us a link to a court case that not only didn't reference a "reasonable person" argument, but linked several other cases, none of which referenced a "reasonable person" argument.
So yeah, if your intention was to confuse us with what your argument is, then you did a good job. I have no clue.
No it wasn't.
Um... yes it was. It's also been a question on the long form questionnaire that was sent to 1 in 6 households from 1970 to 2000.
So technically the question has been asked every year other than 1960 and 2010. Even Polifact confirmed this.
142 comments:
"Miss me yet?"
Absolutely not.
Absolutely
It's a Witch Hunt!
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) inspector general formally announced Wednesday that he will launch a separate investigation into the DOJ's handling of a surveillance warrant application for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
The inquiry comes "in response to requests from the attorney general and members of Congress," according to the statement from Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
Conservatives for weeks have trumpeted allegations that the DOJ and the FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), detailed in a controversial memo authored by staff for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). The allegations were also detailed in a separate criminal referral made by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
Broadly, the GOP lawmakers believe that officials inappropriately used a controversial piece of opposition research into then-candidate Donald Trump to obtain a politically-motivated warrant on Page.
President Birther has disappeared since the 60 Minutes story.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Absolutely
i'm sure you do, alky. and here's why:
Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's own need to think.
- Adolf Eichmann
More evidence of the tragedy of Trumpism stage four.
The definition of Trumpism
Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's own need to think.
- Adolf Eichmann
Trump lawyer said to mention idea of pardoning.
Trump lawyer said NO mention of pardoning.
FTFY creeper.
"Adolf Eichmann"
Liberal hero.
Awesome pic and true
geezus alky, you're so fucking intellectually crippled you feel the need to copy/paste another's comments from the same thread.
i can now see why the ability to comprehend the 14th amendment to our constitution is out of your reach.
The former head of President Donald Trump's legal team discussed the idea of pardoning two of the president's former top advisors with their lawyers, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
The Times, citing three people with knowledge of the discussions, reported that the topic was broached last year by Trump's lawyer John Dowd in talks with lawyers for former national security advisor Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort.
Both men were charged with crimes as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of potential links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump has regularly denied any collusion between his campaign and Russia, and some of his recent statements have raised concerns that he is preparing to fire Mueller.
Asked about the president's views on his power to pardon at a White House briefing on Wednesday, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, "There would be no reason for me to have had a conversation with the president about that, because that is not being currently discussed at the White House."
But Dowd reportedly raised the prospect of pardoning the two former officials last summer, shortly after he joined Trump's legal team, the Times reported.
Dowd reportedly told Flynn's lawyer that Trump was prepared to pardon Flynn on the basis that he believed the case against his former top advisor was flimsy.
Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to investigators about contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Manafort, however, pleaded not guilty to dozens of counts levied against him in multiple indictments.
In a statement to NBC News, White House lawyer Ty Cobb said, "I have only been asked about pardons by the press and have routinely responded on the record that no pardons are under discussion or under consideration at the White House."
Cobb did not immediately respond to CNBC when asked if he was aware of Dowd's conversations at the time.
The special counsel's office declined to comment on the newspaper's report. Dowd did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.
Not one of the denials state that the President denies the charges. They are always statements of "The White House", not the President
"you're so fucking intellectually crippled you feel the need to copy/paste another's comments from the same thread."
I think we can ALL understand why CH unfriended and blocked him on Facebook.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. The 14th Amendment changed a portion of Article I, Section 2. A portion of the 14th Amendment was changed by the 26th Amendment
SECTION 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States , or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
SECTION 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
SECTION 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
SECTION 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The Times, citing three people with knowledge of the discussions...
translation: shit maggie haberman made up.
But Dowd reportedly...
Dowd reportedly
a not so clever reporting tactic. fabricate shit and describe it as "reportedly."
uh alky, where i come from "reportedly" = hearsay.
oh, and here's the link to your stolen content:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/28/trumps-lawyer-floated-idea-of-pardons-in-muellers-russia-probe.html
It was passed in reaction to the Civil war.
"It was passed in reaction to the Civil war."
Good Lord.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
The President has given aid and comfort to Vladimir Putin, a sworn enemy of the United States.
Of course it was Loretta, its specific in addressing those who were in the Confederacy.
"But Dowd reportedly...
Dowd reportedly
a not so clever reporting tactic. fabricate shit and describe it as "reportedly.""
In other words, lies and propaganda.
Stolen from Facebook Roger Amick.
I spoke with my brother Jon. He's in stage four cancer. We grew up together.
Devastated.
"Awesome pic and true"
Which is why Roger is deflecting with lies and propaganda.
Dowd did not create the comments out of thin air.
You don't understand how this works.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. The 14th Amendment changed a portion of Article I, Section 2. A portion of the 14th Amendment was changed by the 26th Amendment
and posted without comment. meaning you post shit you could not possibly understand.
good job, alky.
Propaganda is the claim that the free press is Fake News.
The President has given aid and comfort to Vladimir Putin, a sworn enemy of the United States.
1. The president hasn't given aid and comfort to Putin. That is a fantasy created by you fevered TDS mind.
2. Putin is not officially an enemy of the United States for that you would need a declaration of was or a least a resolution of hostilities against Russia.
Maybe you should get back on your meds.
Yes, the voting age was decreased to 18.
"I spoke with my brother Jon. He's in stage four cancer. We grew up together."
Since you're in such stellar health, why aren't you going to visit him?
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Dowd did not create the comments out of thin air.
of course he didn't. in fact, dowd may have not commented at all. it was only "reported" that he did.
I think we can ALL understand why CH unfriended and blocked him on Facebook.
Other than you, loser loretta the loathsome lesbian, who gives a fuck?????? Seems to me being on Facebook has led you and others to copious amount of russian fake news stories that you embrace...glad I can say I have never visited or signed onto that POS site like you do.....LOL
More sexual obsession from Denny.
The president hasn't given aid and comfort to Putin. That is a fantasy created by you fevered TDS mind.
The President ignored advice from his political advisers who said: DO NOT CONGRATULATE PUTIN FOR HIS ELECTION VICTORY.
Roger Amick said...
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Which is what the California sanctuary state law does to US citizens.
Roger Amick said...
The president hasn't given aid and comfort to Putin. That is a fantasy created by you fevered TDS mind.
The President ignored advice from his political advisers who said: DO NOT CONGRATULATE PUTIN FOR HIS ELECTION VICTORY.</b.
you count a fleeting telephone congratulations as "aid and comfort?"
well, of course you do. you're still obsessed with trump's inaugural crowd size for chrissakes.
oh, and btw alky -
ronald reagan ignored the advice of his advisors who advised him to not include the words "mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall" in his speech at the brandenburg gate.
so put your big boy pants on and go find something of substance to criticize trump for.
russia and a crusty old cum dumpster just don't seem to have the impact you wish they would.
Loretta you do not have a clue that I feel about my brother. A an appointment for X-ray of my are back on April Fifth. I will fly to Billings Montana and spend a few days there with my brother perhaps the last time.
He had melanoma last August. They aggressively treated him, and they thought they had stopped it. He has a tumor in his brain. The doctors used radiation therapy to treat the tumor. They said it had not been effective. He has declined further treatments on the doctors comments. He has up to six months on the outside.
You have no idea how much this hurts. My first memory was the day he came home after his birth. I was not quite three years old.
Putin is not officially an enemy of the United States for that you would need a declaration of was or a least a resolution of hostilities against Russia.
exactly.
i mean, 0linsky called. he wants his dismissive russia foreign policy back.
right rog?
Loathsome loser lesbian loretta posted another POS without thinking, nothing new there!!!
More sexual obsession from Denny.
What ever you say, whom ever you are....Loretta Russo is nothing but a fake and fraud.....LOL
Comparing Trump to Reagan will cause him to roll in his grave
"Loretta you do not have a clue that I feel about my brother."
I happen to remember that you wished my baby sister would die...so there's that.
Unlike you, I take no pleasure in his suffering/illness.
It's not his fault that you're a prick.
"whom ever"
*whomever, Denny.
"mean, 0linsky called. he wants his dismissive russia foreign policy back.
right rog?"
Ouch.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Comparing Trump to Reagan will cause him to roll in his grave
it wasn't a comparison, rog. simply something noted by james baker in response to andrea mitchell's childish snark in a recent interview. it illustrates the fact that sometimes presidents overrule their advisors. because they can.
Mitchell consistently tried to bait Baker into attacking Trump, suggesting that Trump was too hasty in agreeing to meet with North Korea and was wrong to congratulate Russian president Vladimir Putin on his recent electoral victory.
“The president on one hand, a week ago, congratulates Vladimir Putin on a sham election in contradiction to his own advice being written in big, bold, capital letters,” Mitchell said. “And doesn’t bring up the fact that the Kremlin tried to kill a former Russian spy and his daughter on English soil.”
“Then, a week later, we’re expelling more spies than at any time since the Cold War,” she concluded.
Baker, who served as secretary of state under George HW Bush and chief of staff for Ronald Reagan, opted not to bash Trump for his decision to congratulate Putin.
“I think there could be an improvement in this White House with message discipline, needless to say,” he started, before reminding Andrea Mitchell that Ronald Reagan’s aides did not want him to say “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall” during the Cold War.
“He said, ‘look, I’m president and this is what I’m going to say,’ and he wrote it back in the speech,” Baker recalled. “So that turned out alright.”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/28/sec-baker-gives-andrea-mitchell-a-history-lesson/
mitchell should really take a break from being a fucking C U Next Tuesday every time she's interviewing a republican.
Roger AmickMarch 28, 2018 at 9:16 PM
The Constitution says "persons" .
counting the whole number of persons in each State, does not say citizens, because the constitution applies to people"
When you lack basic understanding of the US Constution, you say dumb shit.
The Kansas idiot used a Constitutional argument about the roll of the police in demonstrations. Really fucking stupid." Opie Adicted HB
Yep, I am terrible to use actual case law, USSC Decided Constitutional information to throat punch alky.
What a surprise
Documents suggest possible coordination between CIA, FBI, Obama WH and Dem officials early in Trump-Russia probe: investigators
Obumble led a criminal enterprise
Well Roger...
if only you could impeach a President for legal actions that he never actually did, then the rumors that Pardons were discussed would mean something.
As it is:
1) Pardons are legal
2) I would be shocked if the possibility wasn't discussed
3) There isn't any actual proof that they were
4) He hasn't actually pardoned anyone.
U.S. filings for unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell last week to the lowest level since January 1973, further evidence that the labor market remains tight, Labor Department figures showed Thursday.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-29/u-s-jobless-claims-decline-to-lowest-level-since-january-1973
PBS Travis Smiley talking about "The Lost Years.
Eight years into Barack Obama’s presidency, Tavis Smiley is not so optimistic about the first black president’s legacy on racial issues.
In a conversation with HuffPost Live, the talk show host lamented the lack of economic progress amongst black Americans since Obama entered office. While dissipating black affluence can’t be completely blamed on Obama, 2009 marked a huge drop in black wealth, which widened the ever-lopsided wealth ratios between blacks and whites in the U.S..
Sadly — and it pains me to say this — over the last decade, black folk, in the era of Obama, have lost ground in every major economic category,” Smiley told host Alyona Minkovski.
Despite the tough times, the talk show host said that African Americans have remained optimistic and have even been “too deferential” to the commander-in-chief:"
unexpectedly!
LOL.
caliphate4vr said...
Obumble led a criminal enterprise
And looking like its towering above Watergate. What a legacy for the history books.
here's an example of why we are so quick to mock the msm:
Not one of the denials state that the President denies the charges. They are always statements of "The White House", not the President
ask yourself if we would have even seen such a sentence in a media report on the 0linsky regime.
Obumble led a criminal enterprise
heh. 'russia, russia, russia' turned out to be an inside job.
and what's even more remarkable is that everyone involved will get away with it.
Our loathsome loser lesbian loretta the fake and fraud again proves she is not who she says she is sith
*whomever, Denny.
Good one grammarian asshole.Another who gives a fuck correction....LOL...You do not exist, so I will go into my I don't give a fuck what you post mode and just mock you like the idiot you are....
This matters because it's an attempt to block justice. By giving pardons to purchase their silence.
But it could be a disaster if they testify against the President.
Califat head posts more fake news....possibly!!!
Documents suggest possible coordination between CIA, FBI, Obama WH and Dem officials early in Trump-Russia probe: investigators
And fox news found pigs can fly if provided enough thrust....Yeah, that's it!!!!!
Blogger Roger Amick said...
This matters because it's an attempt to block justice. By giving pardons to purchase their silence.
ok sport, please provide the evidence that any pardon issued to manafort, et. al. will require a gag order on the part of the pardonee in exchange for the pardon.
we'll wait.
i mean, you're making a very bold claim. i must assume that you have incontrovertible evidence to back it up. so please share.
Well Rat...
Roger just assumes that if Trump wakes up in the morning, it must involve some sort of crime. So the idea that a Pardon can be assumed to be corrupt is just an offshoot of the TDS.
oh, and alky?
i'm just going to go ahead and file the pardon story under "shit americans don't really care about."
i need your opinion on one thing though -
should i file all this shit in alphabetical or chronological order?
thanks in advance rog.
Blogger C.H. Truth said...
Well Rat...
Roger just assumes that if Trump wakes up in the morning, it must involve some sort of crime.
AH HA!!!11!
that's it!!!
let's make trump's conscious state - that means when he's awake, rog - a high crime and misdemeanor which makes it...
wait for it...
an impeachable offense!!!
CH, you're a genius! you finally figured out how to nail trump and oust his from the presidency.
should we share this with maxine waters or should we just let her figure it out for herself?
And another compelling Fox source that becomes the root of another round of nothing.....from the cali BS link..
enough to warrant the appointment of an independent investigator to look at whether or not the Obama White House was involved [in the Trump-Russia investigation],” a GOP congressional source told Fox News.
Wow, an congressional un named source, something you all constantly bemoan about the times or post using the same type of source...Hypocrite is your middle name...
And fatty is your middle name
LMAO
btw rog, regarding the pardons that are keeping you up at night, remember that mueller collaborated with my NY AG eric schneedledick, to ensure manafort, et. al. are also charged in NYS rendering them out of reach of a full pardon.
You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL, Denny.
I don't miss the political BS that permeated the administration of various agencies, but I do miss the rational policy decisions and competence.
"but I do miss the rational policy decisions and competence."
Yeah, Obama was really good with a pen and a phone.
Weaponizing the federal government against the citizenry is not what I would call "rational policy"
The loathsome loser lesbian fraud alleges that "You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL,,,,
For an old hag and fraud, even that is getting tiresome lesbo... Don't you have something else to do, like making dinner and washing some skid marked underwear ??? Idiot
Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
Weaponizing the federal government against the citizenry is not what I would call "rational policy"
it is if you're in favor of it.
i have yet to see a liberal criticize the weaponization of the IRS or the unconstitutionality of 0lisnky's unilateral pen and phone behavior. members of the house, specifically members of the congressional black caucus, not only cheered 0linsky's actions, they advocated for giving him even MORE executive power.
DOJ Inspector General reviews alleged FISA abuses by DOJ, FBI
You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL, Denny.
"it is if you're in favor of it."
Which pretty much blows his, "I'm a moderate Democrat" out of the water.
did i mention he's black?...
A former FBI agent in Minnesota was motivated to leak classified information to The Intercept website, in part, because he is black. That’s according to lawyers for Terry James Albury, a former special agent who was charged in the leak case on Wednesday.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/28/minnesota-fbi-the-intercept-leaks-terry-james-albury/
huh. it looks like trump broke him too -
Whore Hey Ramos Eyeing Return to Mexico
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/latino/kathleen-krumhansl/2018/03/28/jorge-ramos-eyeing-return-mexico
I do miss the rational policy decisions and competence."
Lol, whata joke.
"RED LINE"
"BENGAZI"
"FAST AND FURIOUS"
Shall I continue?
Hi moon-calf oPie.
"Weaponizing the federal government against the citizenry" - not everyone uncritically accepts the smear-campaign buzzwords like this.
Lol, that is funny.
We heard ya before. On this thread.
@
March. 29, 2018 at 11:07 AM.
Laugh at you then too.
The consumer comfort index held unchanged at 56.8 in the March 25 week and only 2 tenths shy of a record. This year's tax-cut boost and continuing strength in the labor market are big pluses for consumer confidence." Liberal Bloomberg News.
The tax cuts that the left here gladly pocket, yet 100% of the Dems voted against in DC.
Anonymous wphamilton said...
"Weaponizing the federal government against the citizenry" - not everyone uncritically accepts the smear-campaign buzzwords like this.
true.
i'm sure lois lerner and john koskinen have a problem with it.
gloria vanderbilt heiress anderson cooper will be interviewing another whore:
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/380628-cnn-to-host-town-hall-with-comey-next-month
Former US Supreme Court Justice and life long Leftit Hero John Paul Steven wants an end to the 2nd Amendment.
Huge supporter of #WalkforourLies.
true.
i'm sure lois lerner and john koskinen have a problem with it.
Don't forget Operation Choke Point
Consumer sentiment held strong the last two weeks of the month as the final March index came in at a 14-year high of 101.4 vs 102.0 in the mid-month reading and well up from 99.7 in February."
Lapping the Lost years.
Alky, you still crediting this to obimbo?
Top Laura Ingraham Advertisers
1. @sleepnumber
2. @ATT
3. Nutrish
4. @Allstate & @esurance
5. @Bayer
6. @RocketMortgage Mortgage
7. @LibertyMutual
8. @Arbys
9. @TripAdvisor
10. @Nestle
11. @hulu
12. @Wayfair
13. @S.Scott
Don't forget Operation Choke Point
wasn't that the name they gave for when the alky tongue-bathed 0linsky's nutsack?
Blogger Roger Amick said..
.
Top Laura Ingraham Advertisers
yes alky, camera hogg is encouraging an ingraham advertiser boycott.
what's next? yesterday's weather forecast?
Don't forget about Eric Holder going after the AP reporter and James Rosen.
"yes alky, camera hogg is encouraging an ingraham advertiser boycott."
He's quick.
He's quick.
and he loves a good boycott of a rightie. as ineffective as they might be.
"and he loves a good boycott of a rightie. as ineffective as they might be."
She apologized.
She apologized.
as i knew she would. i'll bet she received a phone call directing her to do so.
in this case i'm disappointed that she went after the rotten little shit. it's a no win situation. they can run their mouths in the most vile way imaginable, but call them out on it and you're picking on a child.
laura's a smart person. she should've seen this coming and skipped the whole thing.
"laura's a smart person. she should've seen this coming and skipped the whole thing."
Exactly.
#walkforourLies. 90 percent retread hippies, pussyhat, snowflakes and occupy Wallstreet with a heavy does repeal the 2nd Amendment. 10 youth 18 and under. Total mob count 125 k.
Glenn Beck drew more.
#walkforourLies. 90 percent retread hippies, pussyhat, snowflakes and occupy Wallstreet with a heavy does repeal the 2nd Amendment. 10 youth 18 and under. Total mob count 125 k.
Glenn Beck drew more.
Rossane tv show pro Trump, not conservativism was a Yuge Success. I found it funny, balanced., will it bring back "Last Man Standing"
Rat the gigantic asshole postulates that..
, camera hogg is encouraging an ingraham advertiser boycott.
Guess what, a bunch pulled out and got the first time, adams apple laura apologized to the punk who punked her....Kid has a big set, certainly bigger than yours, rat, the chicken shit poster....Kid 1, rathole and laura zippo
#walkforourLies. 90 percent retread hippies,
Sure asshole....
Total mob count 125 k.
Once again you just make shit up....
March for Our Lives crowd size: Estimated 200,000 people ...
www.cbsnews.com/news/march-for-our-lives-crowd-size...
The peak crowd size was 202,796 people, with a margin of error of 15 percent, reaching its largest size at 1 p.m.
Maybe even bigger than the january trump crowd....
As always fatty is wrong
Contrary to what’s been reported in many media accounts, the D.C. March for Our Lives crowd was not primarily made up of teenagers. Only about 10 percent of the participants were under 18. The average age of the adults in the crowd was just under 49 years old, which is older than participants at the other marches I’ve surveyed but similar to the age of the average participant at the Million Moms March in 2000, which was also about gun control.
"As always fatty is wrong"
Anonymous commie said...
2.9 % 2017 GDP Revised final report.
Can't you get anything correct/???
March 28, 2018 at 11:25 AM
Anonymous commie said...
this has got to be the most fucked up and bungled coup attempt in the history of coup attempts.
You misspelled coup....should be coupe......that would make your statement correct...idiot
March 18, 2018 at 10:20 AM
I knew that would grab your testicles...such an easy troll....and test, that was my post and yes it flew over your short statured head...
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
. The average age of the adults in the crowd was just under 49 years old, which is older than participants at the other marches I’ve surveyed but similar to the age of the average participant at the Million Moms March in 2000, which was also about gun control.
And the fat head of georgia can't read either. My sure asshole comment concerned a statement about 90% hippies.... Gee, Paulies link proved that with the average age of crowd being under 49. Don't know any hippie under 49 asshole, But thanx for proving my post, Pauline. Your zeal trying to prove me wrong again bit you and gigantic asshole rat where the sun don't shine....Good going Paulie as I bask in your stupidity....
BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
My goodness, we don't call you dopie for nothing
Nbc was trying to tell the country that there were 800k. But cbs was reporting 200k simultaneously. Lol.
Fatty, so your crowd was from 125 k to 800 k, shit let's use obimbo jobs math and call it a million people that want the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Moon-calf oPie.
My qoute was not limited to hippies you myopic loser.
90 percent retread hippies, pussyhat, snowflakes and occupy Wallstreet with a heavy does repeal the 2nd Amendment. 10% youth 18 and under.
Little balls said...
My goodness, we don't call you dopie for nothing
And so fucking what, loser...
The asshole of kansas digs deeper with,...
90 percent retread hippies,
Which is exactly what I said sure about...do you work at being this stupid or is it inbreeding????? Again you should give up before looking any dumber than this.....LOLOLOL
I know Russia, China, NK and other nations misses Obama. They rolled him in every way.
Moon-calf oPie, i was hoping you could read an comprehend, you can't.
Notice when jane is gone so is HB.
Joyless Behar called the President a "Whore".
CH won't apologies to the 4.2 GPA student like a Faux News host.
NEWS
Search The Web
Search Aol.com
AdChoices
Fox News host mocks Fla. school shooting survivor
Business InsiderBryan LoganMar 29th 2018 10:55AM
Laura Ingraham, a Fox News opinion host, made what some have interpreted as a snide comment about David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland school shooting.
Ingraham tweeted a link to a news article about Hogg having received some college rejection letters.
She tweeted the article's headline, "David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied," adding "and whines about it" at the end.
Hogg is now urging people to boycott Ingraham's advertisers,
David Hogg, a Parkland school shooting survivor who has become one of the prominent voices for gun control, is now going after a conservative talk-show host's advertisers after she made light of his college-rejection letters.
Laura Ingraham, a Fox News opinion host, tweeted a link to a news article about Hogg having received rejection letters from several University of California schools.
"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied," the article's headline read, "and whines about it," Ingraham added.
AdChoices
That tweet went out to Ingraham's 2.2 million Twitter followers Wednesday morning and made its way back to Hogg nearly 10 hours later: "Soooo @IngrahamAngle what are your biggest advertisers ... Asking for a friend," Hogg wrote, with the hashtag, "BoycottingIngramAdverts."
Slideshow preview image
14 PHOTOS
Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg
SEE GALLERY
Later, he tweeted a list of companies and urged his followers to contact them. It was not immediately clear which, if any, of the companies are current Ingraham advertisers. The boycott resembles campaigns that targeted Fox opinion hosts Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, who was forced off the network amid a sexual-harassment scandal last year.
Hogg, and other vocal survivors of gun violence, are among those leading renewed efforts to promote gun-law reforms after the February 14 shooting at Majory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed.
Students, parents, teachers, and other supporters flooded the streets in Washington, DC and all over the world last week for the "March for Our Lives" protest.
Lol
Thanks HB. You are a very funny gal.
"all over the world last week"
Pray tell, which other nations have a right to arm as we do in the USA ?
Yes, March 29, 2018 will be a day that I will never forget.
My doctor said that I am cured. Sorry rrb, I'm not going to die. Thanks for the assistance with the $1,620,500.
Add what your passport wife has bilked and your north of $2,000,000.00.
$2,000,000.00 Lollapalooz
really? you've achieved immortality, alky? well good for you. although i think at some point you'll be disappointed in your outcome.
seriously, anyone who's been a regular on this blog has witnessed me telling you on countless occasions that i don't give a fuck one way or the other. however, having you around to mock and ridicule is entertaining.
so good luck in your quest to live forever, alky. it's doubtful that you will, but you've been lying to yourself for decades, so one more self inflicted falsehood really shouldn't matter at this point.
Waiting on the very bright HB
"all over the world last week"
Pray tell, which other nations have a right to arm as we do in the USA ?
Roger Amick said...
$2,000,000.00 Lollapalooza"
passport monkey and Alky party on the workers dime, unless alky is unaware that the money is not their's and that the term he used means to party with music and a lot of friends????????????????
"seriously, anyone who's been a regular on this blog has witnessed me telling you on countless occasions that i don't give a fuck one way or the other"
His jealousy of you is astounding.
Unnatural.
Blogger KD said...
Add what your passport wife has bilked and your north of $2,000,000.00.
i'm old enough to remember when - if you were suckling on the public tit you were very self aware and the situation came with a certain level of shame. or at least you didn't publicly revel in it.
nowadays being a blood sucking parasite has become a source of pride for folks like the alky.
weird.
i guess self esteem just isn't what it used to be.
another by-product of the 0linsky era.
His jealousy of you is astounding.
Unnatural.
i just remain forever grateful there's an entire continent that separates us. like most liberals he's seriously mentally ill.
Pretty self evident, freemartin lover.....LOL
Moon-calf oPie, i was hoping you could read an comprehend, you can't.
90 percent retread hippies,
just because you can't write worth a shit, doesn't mean others care how hard you try.....idiot..
17 year old kicks Laura's ass as her head firmly buried in the sand box of stupidity....great job!!!
All day Thursday, Laura Ingraham weathered an advertiser exodus spearheaded by Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg. But you wouldn’t have known it from watching Thursday’s episode of her Fox News show.
Ingraham, who was roundly criticized for publicly mocking Hogg after he was rejected by several California colleges, didn’t address the boycott that, as of her airtime, saw at least eight advertisers cut ties. She also didn’t follow up on the apology she tweeted out earlier in the day.
Typical R....msybe it will just go away....not this time...
"just remain forever grateful there's an entire continent that separates us. like most liberals he's seriously mentally ill."
Me too. I'd hate to have ANY of these lunatics on here remotely close.
Ingraham, who was roundly criticized for publicly mocking Hogg after he was rejected by several California colleges,
I bet FDU would take his stupid ass, they'll accept anybody
LMAO
I bet FDU would take his stupid ass, they'll accept anybody
And I bet you are a flaming asshole salesman with a degree in party....LOL
HI DENNIS, how your kids are fine, sorry to hear about your wife.
Moon-calf oPie, i was hoping you could read an comprehend, you can't.
"Weaponizing the federal government against the citizenry" - not everyone uncritically accepts the smear-campaign buzzwords like this.,
You should take your own advice when you use smear-campaign buzzwords like that to describe Trump and his Administration?
KD continues his losing ways with
i was hoping you could read an comprehend, you can't.
And you write worse than a third grader.....LOL
You should take your own advice when you use smear-campaign buzzwords like that to describe Trump and his Administration?
When I do smear Trump with some buzzword, and I DO think he's a criminal-minded self-absorbed boob - I don't allege that it's some kind of universally accepted fact.
You'll note that I said "not everyone agrees", and NOT "that's a lie" or the common variants thereof. So yeah, I do "follow my own advice" in this regard.
Actually WP...
That's exactly what you did when you decided on the other thread that a "Reasonable Person Standard" could be used because you deemed that specific political rhetoric that you used about Trump could be considered fact.
The truth is that any "Reasonable Person Standard" that requires we consider an opinion about the President and his potential actions... is almost assuredly going to result in "reasonable people" venomously disagreeing.
In fact, I might suggest that the very idea of bringing Trump into any arguments turns many reasonable people unreasonable.
That's exactly what you did when you decided on the other thread that a "Reasonable Person Standard" could be used because you deemed that specific political rhetoric that you used about Trump could be considered fact.
You didn't get it then, and obviously you don't understand it now. You seem to labor under the misconception that my saying that a court would use that standard is tantamount saying that it convicts Trump.
I told you that a court case will ultimately come down to that. I didn't tell you one way or other how I thought a court would decide - just that they will have to consider it against that standard.
You've lost the thread here CH. Anything anyone says to you is, in your mind, anti-Trump somehow.
You're right WP... I don't get it.
I don't understand your assertion that the courts would ignore the statistics regarding the existing Census Bureau questionnaires that have included and/or not included the citizen question.
Other than protest the idea that the Census Bureau would actually be able to track that information (or accuse me of making up the concept that they would)... You still have not offered why the Courts would ignore the data and use some hypothetical guess to come to their conclusion?
We obviously don't know what that data will show. The person who wrote the article made his claims, which may be correct or may be incorrect. But I think it's fairly reasonable to suggest that a Court could look at this information and make a fair determination (based on statistics) rather than decide to take a "guess" based on a reasonable person standard
(or would it be specifically a reasonable illegal alien standard as the general reasonable person would have no reason to not answer the question?)
Serious question, WP...
Is it really your overall assertion that our court system should stop trying to be a fact based system, using facts, precedent, evidence, and objectively when at all possible?
Because it seems like you prefer to make any excuse for any particular Judge to allow his/her personal opinion to become the overriding factor in their decision making?
I guess I have always seen the courts as the one place where we try to maintain objectivity and make every effort to take out subjectivity whenever possible?
1. You should stop vaguely citing "statistics" and "tangible evidence" that you cannot provide. Nor even reference specifically.
2. Courts don't pick and choose what "standard" they want to use to settle a question.
3. You sound like you've never heard of the idea. In law the "reasonable person" is a hypothetical average person. Usually you'd see it in something like a negligence prosecution. But the law needs a shorthand reference to an average, reasonable person.
5. It is objectively reasonable to expect recent immigrants, in light of recent high profile federal operations and people being deported when previous governments were accepting of them, to be be fearful of government agents wanting to know their citizenship status. A court addressing this Census issue is going to have to examine that statement, one way or the other.
CH why do you want the Census to UNDERCOUNT non-citizens, if your goal is addressing illegal immigration?
Supplemental surveys (AFTER and apart from the 10-year apportionment survey) have long been used to determine the under-count. Those who, for some reason or another, declined to participate. Therefore, imposing those questions on the decennial enumeration survey will serve to *reduce* the numbers responding as opposed to utilizing a post-Census sampling survey as I proposed. It's because you don't care about that - all you want is for the total number to be lowered because those populations vote for Democrats.
BTW I urge you again to read this decision Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives,
525 U.S. 316 (1999) which would address many of the misconceptions I see popping up on this blog.
WP...
This was the case regarding sampling methods. It determined that sampling could not be used for population apportionment. The argument would appear (tangibly) to be the opposite of what you are arguing.
In order for the party to have standing, they needed to show proof that the sampling would in fact devalue their census count.
The Courts determined that there was undoubtedly a "traceable" connection between the use of sampling in the decennial census and Indiana's expected loss of a Representative.
All of this was a the court "rejecting" the concept of a sampling method, or any sort of best guess... and basically demanding that a full census be taken in order to provide the clearest indication of who lived there.
Seems to me that the court is showing a preponderance to the idea of a full census count as being the most accurate. I didn't in either in this case, or in any of the referenced case see any reference what-so-ever to any sort of Reasonable person standard.
Entirely the opposite appears to be true. The court wanted a full count to garner the most reliable information.
You are still back to square one, WP.
_____
The current case is not about "undercounting from sampling" (although I think you know that). It's about participation rates. What you need to find is court precedent that suggests that a State can sue due to their "fear" of a lower participation rate.
You must also accept the fact that this particular census question was part of our census taking up until 1950 and was considered a perfectly legal question. If it was perfectly legal in 1950, why is it not legal in 2020? It seems like more of the same "Donald Trump" legal standard, where some prefer to simply see the law differently because they don't like the President.
You must also accept the fact that the census bureau does not (and cannot legally) share this data to any other department (including immigration or customs) by law.
____
Lastly, have you thought about the equal protection concept of all of this?
There are a myriad of questions that people do not want to answer based on the idea that they don't want the Federal Government to know certain information about themselves. We already know that many Americans refuse to take the census because they don't want to provide certain information.
What makes the illegal aliens special here? Under the equal protection, every citizen (or is it person) needs to be treated the same.
If you remove a question because illegal aliens are offended by it, should you not then be obligated to remove any other question that might produce a lower participation of other groups for the same reason? Are you not opening up a whole big can of worms by catering to one particular group of people...
especially considering you pretty much admit that there is no empirical evidence to back the underlying claim in the suit?
This was the case regarding sampling methods. It determined that sampling could not be used for population apportionment. The argument would appear (tangibly) to be the opposite of what you are arguing.
You are unresponsive to the actual arguments, so I believe that you are unaware of what my arguments are.
You must also accept the fact that this particular census question was part of our census taking up until 1950 and was considered a perfectly legal question. If it was perfectly legal in 1950,
No it wasn't.
I believe that you are unaware of what my arguments are.
Correct. I am not sure anyone at this point could know.
You stated that it was a "reasonable person" case and then provided us a link to a court case that not only didn't reference a "reasonable person" argument, but linked several other cases, none of which referenced a "reasonable person" argument.
So yeah, if your intention was to confuse us with what your argument is, then you did a good job. I have no clue.
No it wasn't.
Um... yes it was. It's also been a question on the long form questionnaire that was sent to 1 in 6 households from 1970 to 2000.
So technically the question has been asked every year other than 1960 and 2010. Even Polifact confirmed this.
Post a Comment