Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

New Donald Trump thread

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Howe said:

 

TWS

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Irishman said:

 

 

Awwwwww look at the cute little threesome we have going here. lol 

Get upset because someone called someone out on a post; and turn right around to do the exact same thing. It's adorable really. 

Are you really a moderator?  If so, I am taken back a little.

I get you are trying to deflect to me.  The difference is I own it.  I am be rough on people that are rough on me.  I admit it.   You won't admit it and that's ok.

I shared with you a perception that after your repeated requests to "calm down the tone", you then selectively went after someone that you have a history of going after.  You can deny that...FINE!  I don't care.  Either accept the feedback that is seems like you are selective or don't.  

Good grief man....please tell me that you are not a moderator and Howe had that incorrect.....

  • Like 2
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Are you really a moderator?  If so, I am taken back a little.

I get you are trying to deflect to me.  The difference is I own it.  I am be rough on people that are rough on me.  I admit it.   You won't admit it and that's ok.

I shared with you a perception that after your repeated requests to "calm down the tone", you then selectively went after someone that you have a history of going after.  You can deny that...FINE!  I don't care.  Either accept the feedback that is seems like you are selective or don't.  

Good grief man....please tell me that you are not a moderator and Howe had that incorrect.....

What’s the matter? You can call someone out, but don’t like the feedback you get in return? hmmmmmm....sounds familiar. Either accept the feedback that YOU are selective or don’t. Are you going to try and say you are balanced In who you call out? I have not seen it. I am not the only one that has called him out for his tone here, yet you single me out, and I only see you go after one or two other members other than me recently. I provided examples of times I have called others out. It is you that decided to shift the goal posts with the added terms of recently and in the last few days. And the fact is, you even made reference to post I made about the tone of name calling, and yet you still feel I am selective, and even avoiding calling out friends here. The fact is that is not accurate at all. 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Irishman said:

What’s the matter? You can call someone out, but don’t like the feedback you get in return? hmmmmmm....sounds familiar. Either accept the feedback that YOU are selective or don’t. Are you going to try and say you are balanced In who you call out? I have not seen it. I am not the only one that has called him out for his tone here, yet you single me out, and I only see you go after one or two other members other than me recently. I provided examples of times I have called others out. It is you that decided to shift the goal posts with the added terms of recently and in the last few days. And the fact is, you even made reference to post I made about the tone of name calling, and yet you still feel I am selective, and even avoiding calling out friends here. The fact is that is not accurate at all. 

This is really humorous...I think I've been clear....you keep the feedback coming.  

Your response is like one of a teenage girl scorned.....keep this up, you may have to forfeit the man card.....wow!!

Note to self:  self-reflection....not a strength....don't share anymore perceptions of this guy.  Cannot handle anything that isn't positive.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/05/19/nbc-news-reporting-barack-obama-will-not-attend-portrait-unveiling-until-trump-out-of-office/?fbclid=IwAR03_8wTWqlpcvA7gsHqQNSZKuCQfjbdYCVy0qFUR4LZl2rct2L_r0_RD3M

Former President Barack Hussein Obama will reportedly forgo visiting the White House for the unveiling of his official White House portrait until Donald Trump is out office, according to NBC News. If that means waiting until 2025, that is what he will do.

Obama has apparently had a change of heart since 2012, when he said this at George W. Bush’s unveiling:

“We may have our differences politically, but the presidency transcends those differences.”

Honestly, even if Obama were willing to attend, I should hope Trump would not host him. It appears increasingly likely that Obama was involved in spying on Trump and sabotaging him and his incoming administration on the basis of lies about Russian collusion. Talk about breaking traditions! I am more concerned with traditions on peaceful transfers of power than about portrait unveilings.

BHO's true colors are coming out.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swordfish said:

https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/05/19/nbc-news-reporting-barack-obama-will-not-attend-portrait-unveiling-until-trump-out-of-office/?fbclid=IwAR03_8wTWqlpcvA7gsHqQNSZKuCQfjbdYCVy0qFUR4LZl2rct2L_r0_RD3M

Former President Barack Hussein Obama will reportedly forgo visiting the White House for the unveiling of his official White House portrait until Donald Trump is out office, according to NBC News. If that means waiting until 2025, that is what he will do.

Obama has apparently had a change of heart since 2012, when he said this at George W. Bush’s unveiling:

“We may have our differences politically, but the presidency transcends those differences.”

Honestly, even if Obama were willing to attend, I should hope Trump would not host him. It appears increasingly likely that Obama was involved in spying on Trump and sabotaging him and his incoming administration on the basis of lies about Russian collusion. Talk about breaking traditions! I am more concerned with traditions on peaceful transfers of power than about portrait unveilings.

BHO's true colors are coming out.

Yes, that is chicken-bleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard telling from that story who went first. Did Trump decide to not have the ceremony? Or did Obama refuse to go first? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Irishman said:

It is hard telling from that story who went first. Did Trump decide to not have the ceremony? Or did Obama refuse to go first? 

I suppose it depends on which side is spinning it. I heard that Trump refused first, after I saw SF's post. Trump and Obama may need a moderator.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, gonzoron said:

I suppose it depends on which side is spinning it. I heard that Trump refused first, after I saw SF's post. Trump and Obama may need a moderator.

I volunteer 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/michael-flynns-attorneys-appeal-court-order-that-allows-outside-groups-retired-federal-judge-to-argue-against-tossing-guilty-plea/2020/05/19/9e8e014c-99dc-11ea-a282-386f56d579e6_story.html

Michael Flynn’s attorneys asked an appeals court on Tuesday to order a federal judge to dismiss the conviction of President Trump’s former national security adviser. Flynn’s lawyers also asked the appeals court in Washington to reverse the judge’s order allowing outside groups and a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department’s request to toss the case.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan last week paused Flynn’s case to hear from interested parties and appointed former New York federal judge John Gleeson to argue against the government request. Sullivan also asked Gleeson to examine whether the former three-star general may have committed perjury while pleading guilty to lying about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s ambassador.

In a 44-page filing to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Flynn’s lawyers accused Sullivan of bias and acting at “loggerheads” with recent Supreme Court precedent. Sidney Powell and Flynn’s other attorneys also asked that the case be reassigned for any future proceedings.

“The egregious Government misconduct, and the three-year abuse of General Flynn and his family, cry out for ending this ordeal immediately and permanently,” Powell wrote. “The district judge’s orders reveal his plan to continue the case indefinitely, rubbing salt in General Flynn’s open wound from the Government’s misconduct and threatening him with criminal contempt.”

The Justice Department on May 7 moved to toss out the guilty plea of the highest-ranking Trump adviser convicted in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation. The department concluded that Flynn should never have been interviewed by the FBI and therefore his lies concealing his Russian contacts were immaterial to any crime.

Critics dispute the department’s move, saying it distorted facts and appeared to serve the president’s personal political interests by giving an aide impunity to lie to government investigators.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying in an FBI interview on Jan. 24, 2017, to conceal conversations with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador at the time. The conversations involved talks before Trump took office about avoiding U.S. sanctions and other policies imposed late in Barack Obama’s administration after Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

In a declassified email released Tuesday by Senate Republicans, former national security adviser Susan E. Rice noted concern in Obama’s White House about the frequency of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak and that the then-FBI director said sharing classified information with him could “potentially” be an issue. Obama emphasized that the handling of the Russia investigation should be done by the book, Rice wrote in a note to herself on Jan. 20, 2017, which was Inauguration Day.

In their filing Tuesday, Flynn’s lawyers said prosecutors, not judges, have the authority to decide how to handle pending criminal charges. Judges, they said, may not “change the issues in the case by inviting or appointing” others to perform the executive branch’s duties to investigate or prosecute.

“A district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has ‘a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,’ they said. “Nor should a court second-guess the Government’s ‘conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.’”

In asking that the case be reassigned, Flynn’s defense criticized Sullivan for suggesting at a December 2018 hearing that Flynn may have committed “treason,” before correcting himself, and for saying the former general had “sold [his] country out.”

“This is an umpire who has decided to steal public attention from the players and focus it on himself,” Powell wrote. “He wants to pitch, bat, run bases, and play shortstop. In truth, he is way out in left field.”

 

The filing also suggests that the retired judge Sullivan appointed is not impartial because of an opinion piece by Gleeson that appeared in The Washington Post. In the article, Gleeson questioned the Justice Department’s move to dismiss the case against Flynn and suggested that the court “assess the credibility of the department’s stated reasons for abruptly reversing course.”

Flynn’s attorneys petitioned the appeals court for a writ of mandamus, used when no other relief is available, that requires a party to show “clear and indisputable” right to reverse error by a court. Meeting that high bar may be difficult because the judge has not made a decision yet on the Justice Department’s request, but has appointed a retired judge to advise him now that the government has decided to drop the case.

In abandoning the nearly three-year-old case, the Justice Department cited recently uncovered FBI records showing that the bureau had decided to close a counterintelligence investigation of Flynn — dubbed Operation Razor — before learning of his December 2016 calls with Kislyak. The Justice Department also said the FBI knew from transcripts that the calls probably did not give rise to a crime by themselves and that FBI officials differed over how to handle or interpret his actions.

 

Legal analysts and those involved in the case vigorously dispute the Justice Department’s claims as an attempt to please the president and attack his adversaries.

Critics of Attorney General William P. Barr’s decision argued that the FBI had ample legitimate grounds to investigate Flynn’s lies, which went to the heart of the investigation into whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia’s interference in the election.

Flynn admitted under oath three times before two federal judges that he gave false statements to the FBI as well as to the White House. Federal law criminalizes lying in any matter under court, congressional or executive branch jurisdiction.

 

Seriously, critics notwithstanding - in what what court of law can a judge (after both the prosecutor and the defendant BOTH determine to drop a case brought before it) determine he/she can exact prosecution on the defendant?  Isn't a judge.....a judge?  IMHO - This guy needs to be thrown off the bench.

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swordfish said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/michael-flynns-attorneys-appeal-court-order-that-allows-outside-groups-retired-federal-judge-to-argue-against-tossing-guilty-plea/2020/05/19/9e8e014c-99dc-11ea-a282-386f56d579e6_story.html

Michael Flynn’s attorneys asked an appeals court on Tuesday to order a federal judge to dismiss the conviction of President Trump’s former national security adviser. Flynn’s lawyers also asked the appeals court in Washington to reverse the judge’s order allowing outside groups and a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department’s request to toss the case.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan last week paused Flynn’s case to hear from interested parties and appointed former New York federal judge John Gleeson to argue against the government request. Sullivan also asked Gleeson to examine whether the former three-star general may have committed perjury while pleading guilty to lying about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s ambassador.

In a 44-page filing to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Flynn’s lawyers accused Sullivan of bias and acting at “loggerheads” with recent Supreme Court precedent. Sidney Powell and Flynn’s other attorneys also asked that the case be reassigned for any future proceedings.

“The egregious Government misconduct, and the three-year abuse of General Flynn and his family, cry out for ending this ordeal immediately and permanently,” Powell wrote. “The district judge’s orders reveal his plan to continue the case indefinitely, rubbing salt in General Flynn’s open wound from the Government’s misconduct and threatening him with criminal contempt.”

The Justice Department on May 7 moved to toss out the guilty plea of the highest-ranking Trump adviser convicted in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation. The department concluded that Flynn should never have been interviewed by the FBI and therefore his lies concealing his Russian contacts were immaterial to any crime.

Critics dispute the department’s move, saying it distorted facts and appeared to serve the president’s personal political interests by giving an aide impunity to lie to government investigators.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying in an FBI interview on Jan. 24, 2017, to conceal conversations with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador at the time. The conversations involved talks before Trump took office about avoiding U.S. sanctions and other policies imposed late in Barack Obama’s administration after Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

In a declassified email released Tuesday by Senate Republicans, former national security adviser Susan E. Rice noted concern in Obama’s White House about the frequency of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak and that the then-FBI director said sharing classified information with him could “potentially” be an issue. Obama emphasized that the handling of the Russia investigation should be done by the book, Rice wrote in a note to herself on Jan. 20, 2017, which was Inauguration Day.

In their filing Tuesday, Flynn’s lawyers said prosecutors, not judges, have the authority to decide how to handle pending criminal charges. Judges, they said, may not “change the issues in the case by inviting or appointing” others to perform the executive branch’s duties to investigate or prosecute.

“A district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has ‘a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,’ they said. “Nor should a court second-guess the Government’s ‘conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.’”

In asking that the case be reassigned, Flynn’s defense criticized Sullivan for suggesting at a December 2018 hearing that Flynn may have committed “treason,” before correcting himself, and for saying the former general had “sold [his] country out.”

“This is an umpire who has decided to steal public attention from the players and focus it on himself,” Powell wrote. “He wants to pitch, bat, run bases, and play shortstop. In truth, he is way out in left field.”

 

The filing also suggests that the retired judge Sullivan appointed is not impartial because of an opinion piece by Gleeson that appeared in The Washington Post. In the article, Gleeson questioned the Justice Department’s move to dismiss the case against Flynn and suggested that the court “assess the credibility of the department’s stated reasons for abruptly reversing course.”

Flynn’s attorneys petitioned the appeals court for a writ of mandamus, used when no other relief is available, that requires a party to show “clear and indisputable” right to reverse error by a court. Meeting that high bar may be difficult because the judge has not made a decision yet on the Justice Department’s request, but has appointed a retired judge to advise him now that the government has decided to drop the case.

In abandoning the nearly three-year-old case, the Justice Department cited recently uncovered FBI records showing that the bureau had decided to close a counterintelligence investigation of Flynn — dubbed Operation Razor — before learning of his December 2016 calls with Kislyak. The Justice Department also said the FBI knew from transcripts that the calls probably did not give rise to a crime by themselves and that FBI officials differed over how to handle or interpret his actions.

 

Legal analysts and those involved in the case vigorously dispute the Justice Department’s claims as an attempt to please the president and attack his adversaries.

Critics of Attorney General William P. Barr’s decision argued that the FBI had ample legitimate grounds to investigate Flynn’s lies, which went to the heart of the investigation into whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia’s interference in the election.

Flynn admitted under oath three times before two federal judges that he gave false statements to the FBI as well as to the White House. Federal law criminalizes lying in any matter under court, congressional or executive branch jurisdiction.

 

Seriously, critics notwithstanding - in what what court of law can a judge (after both the prosecutor and the defendant BOTH determine to drop a case brought before it) determine he/she can exact prosecution on the defendant?  Isn't a judge.....a judge?  IMHO - This guy needs to be thrown off the bench.

 

The most ridiculous part is there are lunatics who are cheering for the renegade judge. 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Howe said:

The most ridiculous part is there are lunatics who are cheering for the renegade judge. 

Ahh yes. A judge is a renegade cause Flynn broke the law and Barr didn't care. 

Flynn and Barr will eventually end up in jail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Howe said:

The most ridiculous part is there are lunatics who are cheering for the renegade judge

you came to the right place it would seem........and throw reasoning and logic right out the door.

Will be interesting to see if people accept your new "L" word......

Edited by TrojanDad
  • Like 1
  • Disdain 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

you came to the right place it would seem........and throw reasoning and logic right out the door.

Will be interesting to see if people accept your new "L" word......

Trump and his followers have never used reasoning or logic and its hilarious yall think you do. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

Ahh yes. A judge is a renegade cause Flynn broke the law and Barr didn't care. 

Flynn and Barr will eventually end up in jail. 

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for as unanimous Supreme Court decision eviscerating and reversing  the 9th District Circuit Court for inviting outside council to brief on an issue not before them. 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

Trump and his followers have never used reasoning or logic and its hilarious yall think you do. 

Thank you for not posting this response several times like you did on the other thread.

You must really be an Andrew Yang fan......remember, hit submit reply only one time......

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

you came to the right place it would seem........and throw reasoning and logic right out the door.

Will be interesting to see if people accept your new "L" word......

No one is hated more than he who speaks the truth - Plato

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Howe said:

No one is hated more than he who speaks the truth - Plato

That explains why you, Trojandad attack me, gonzo and dante now doesn't it?

 

Ignorance is a virus. Once it starts spreading, it can only be cured by reason and thats not good because you and trojandad don't understand reasoning or logic.

free advice. This might help you and trojandad. 

It is better to let people think you are stupid than to type it out and show you are stupid. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

Thank you for not posting this response several times like you did on the other thread.

You must really be an Andrew Yang fan......remember, hit submit reply only one time......

Id rather post that 600,000 times than have your posts that clearly lack logic, reason or a coherent response.

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

That explains why you, Trojandad attack me, gonzo and dante now doesn't it?

 

Ignorance is a virus. Once it starts spreading, it can only be cured by reason and thats not good because you and trojandad don't understand reasoning or logic.

free advice. This might help you and trojandad. 

It is better to let people think you are stupid than to type it out and show you are stupid. 

 

@Howe doesn't attack me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignorance is voting for a member of the uni-party, for practically any office, especially POTUS.

 

 

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

That explains why you, Trojandad attack me, gonzo and dante now doesn't it?

 

t is better to let people think you are stupid than to type it out and show you are stupid. 

 

No hate for you UW....I have hope you will eventually will leave the dark side.  I consider you the Anikan Skywalker of your group.  

BTW, you might get a down vote for that post....you left out BO.  Remember, inclusion is important!!

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...