White House has settled in

242,565 Views | 4314 Replies | Last: 2 hrs ago by calbear93
Cal Junkie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:




Bull***** Don't assume. I question the leaks. Obviously some Republicans get to be there. This is a secure room. Why does the media get to blast Taylor's opening statement.
I thought you said you wanted more public disclosure. Why does the disclosure of this information bother you?


Are you being serious? Are you suggesting that a prosecutor leaking testimony to the media is public disclosure? This is dangerous. There is nothing wrong with this process but for the fact that it is a media assassination. They should investigate. Assuming what has leaked holds up to scrutiny, they should impeach and then it will all become public.
What is this gobbledygook argument.
Let me get this straight.

Republicans change rules to screw the Dems.
Dems follow the rules.
Republicans yell "That's not fair!"

It's a recruiting magnet for old scared white people and 19-year-old edge lord weebs.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From the Nazi / Wing Nut Playbook:
A) Distract, deflect, move the goal posts
B) Blame the victim, play the victim
C) Lie, disinform, make **** up
D) Divide, sow division and hate
E) Attack, attack, ATTACK
F) Rinse, repeat
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

dajo9 said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

I thought he was referring to the transcript of Taylor's opening statement, which conveniently has been broadcast to the public, unlike the rest of his testimony. Schiff leaks. AB loves the strategy.

If you want to bet that the public testimony will be any better for Trump, I will happily take that bet.
Then the republicans wouldn't be able to pretend that they haven't had an opportunity to participate in the process. If people bothered to find out the truth, they would learn that republicans are being provided the opportunity to ask questions in these closed-door hearings with equal time.

If oski003 were genuinely interested in having a discussion about this, he wouldn't choose to ignore information and play Socrates.

Here is some more info from the failing LA Times:

Quote:

Forty-seven Republican lawmakers from three House committees Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight have been allowed to attend and participate in all of the depositions of the eight diplomats and government officials brought in to testify so far. The 57 Democrats from those three committees also may attend, but no other lawmakers from either party may enter.

Quote:

Anywhere from about six to several dozen GOP members have shown up each day, sometimes walking in and out of daylong depositions, usually slightly fewer than the number of Democrats in attendance, according to several lawmakers in the room.

Some of the president's strongest allies, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), have been in the room for nearly every minute of the depositions, according to GOP aides. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), former chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and a Trump ally, is there nearly as often. The trio have asked the majority of the questions on behalf of Republican members, Rouda said.
Quote:

House Intelligence Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) has vowed to release the transcripts of the depositions at some point and to hold public hearings, though so far he has not signaled when that might be.

The majority of the questioning at the hearings is done by staff lawyers, with occasional interruptions from lawmakers, according to several people in the room. Democratic lawyers get the first hour of questioning, followed by an hour from Republicans. They continue in that cycle in 45-minute increments with occasional breaks.



Bull***** Don't assume. I question the leaks. Obviously some Republicans get to be there. This is a secure room. Why does the media get to blast Taylor's opening statement.
Can you point to your complaints about Republicans selectively leaking info from the Benghazi and Email investigations. If not, you should go ahead and keep your mouth shut about this.


I'm not justifying anything done regarding Benghazi and Email as that is not the discussion. You are advising me to keep my mouth shut just because I offer a different perspective and that is despicable.


I'm asking you to show me your complaints if you want to be taken seriously.
An old white dude
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:




Bull***** Don't assume. I question the leaks. Obviously some Republicans get to be there. This is a secure room. Why does the media get to blast Taylor's opening statement.
I thought you said you wanted more public disclosure. Why does the disclosure of this information bother you?


Are you being serious? Are you suggesting that a prosecutor leaking testimony to the media is public disclosure? This is dangerous. There is nothing wrong with this process but for the fact that it is a media assassination. They should investigate. Assuming what has leaked holds up to scrutiny, they should impeach and then it will all become public.
So you believe that the alleged conduct is impeachable? Where do you draw the line?
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oski003, you're the last Republican actively fighting till the end for this president (GB4L must be at a sterilization conference).

There are a few people on here who do not hate T, but are on the fence about voting for him again in 2020. Can you please offer the top reasons why you feel he deserves a second term? Please share your own opinion and not bullet points from another source.


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Oski003, you're the last Republican actively fighting till the end for this president (GB4L must be at a sterilization conference).

There are a few people on here who do not hate T, but are on the fence about voting for him again in 2020. Can you please offer the top reasons why you feel he deserves a second term? Please share your own opinion and not bullet points from another source.





I didn't vote for him the first time, and I'm not voting for him this time either.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:




Bull***** Don't assume. I question the leaks. Obviously some Republicans get to be there. This is a secure room. Why does the media get to blast Taylor's opening statement.
I thought you said you wanted more public disclosure. Why does the disclosure of this information bother you?


Are you being serious? Are you suggesting that a prosecutor leaking testimony to the media is public disclosure? This is dangerous. There is nothing wrong with this process but for the fact that it is a media assassination. They should investigate. Assuming what has leaked holds up to scrutiny, they should impeach and then it will all become public.
So you believe that the alleged conduct is impeachable? Where do you draw the line?


Personal gain at the expense of USA. If Trump truly is leveraging our relationship with Ukraine for the main purpose of winning an election, that goes against the presidency. On the other hand, I do believe elements of the conspiracies posted on the right wing sites which point to Trump's administration asking Ukraine to investigate wrongdoings that became the basis of the Mueller investigation.
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

B.A. Bearacus said:

Oski003, you're the last Republican actively fighting till the end for this president (GB4L must be at a sterilization conference).

There are a few people on here who do not hate T, but are on the fence about voting for him again in 2020. Can you please offer the top reasons why you feel he deserves a second term? Please share your own opinion and not bullet points from another source.

I didn't vote for him the first time, and I'm not voting for him this time either.
Hillary thanks you for your vote in 2016
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:




Bull***** Don't assume. I question the leaks. Obviously some Republicans get to be there. This is a secure room. Why does the media get to blast Taylor's opening statement.
I thought you said you wanted more public disclosure. Why does the disclosure of this information bother you?


Are you being serious? Are you suggesting that a prosecutor leaking testimony to the media is public disclosure? This is dangerous. There is nothing wrong with this process but for the fact that it is a media assassination. They should investigate. Assuming what has leaked holds up to scrutiny, they should impeach and then it will all become public.
So you believe that the alleged conduct is impeachable? Where do you draw the line?


Personal gain at the expense of USA. If Trump truly is leveraging our relationship with Ukraine for the main purpose of winning an election, that goes against the presidency. On the other hand, I do believe elements of the conspiracies posted on the right wing sites which point to Trump's administration asking Ukraine to investigate wrongdoings that became the basis of the Mueller investigation.
Assuming for the time being that such elements of conspiracies are potentially valid and worth investigating, do you think it's appropriate for Trump to be personally involved in the investigations and leveraging US foreign aid in such discussions?

Given that Trump has stated publicly that the Mueller investigation was a hoax, do you think it's the highest and best use of his personal attention to involve himself in uncovering wrongdoing in association with the investigation? Do you think it's appropriate for him to involve Giuliani?

Do you think it's appropriate for him to allow Giuliani to involve foreign nationals (including the two who were recently indicted)?

If you think these things are worth investigating but don't love Trump's role, what do you think is the appropriate way to investigate?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
without partisan leaks to the media
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Once tRump vacates the Oval, there will be and investigation of Bill Barr's investigation of the Russian investigation which will forever thereafter be known as The Investigation of the Investigation of an Investigation:





Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

without partisan leaks to the media
So what effect do you think media leaks actually have on the legal process here? Is Trump somehow at greater or less risk of being impeached as a result of the leak?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
U.S. annual budget deficit widens to $984 billion, hitting 7-year high - Axios


https://www.axios.com/annual-budget-deficit-7-year-high-db24e068-7ac7-4497-83a3-45d554334d6d.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

without partisan leaks to the media
One gets the impression that you think that leaks (when they come from one party) are the biggest threat to our democracy. The Mt. Rushmore of concern over leaks: Huggies, Pampers, Depends, Oski003.


Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
...and Depends...
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

without partisan leaks to the media


They aren't leaks- they are reports by the prosecutors.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was reading the Wikipedia page of Don, Jr.'s ex wife, Vanessa, and feel compelled to share this tidbit:
".. Trump Jr. proposed to her with a $100,000 ring that he got for free from a jeweler in exchange for proposing to her in front of paparazzi outside of the jeweler's store in a New Jersey mall."


*I guess these are the things you do when you have created the illusion of wealth but that you are in reality broke.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

oski003 said:

without partisan leaks to the media


They aren't leaks- they are reports by the prosecutors. It is interesting as theater and I enjoy the continued destruction of both parties.
FIFY.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Anarchistbear said:

oski003 said:

without partisan leaks to the media


They aren't leaks- they are reports by the prosecutors. It is interesting as theater and I enjoy the continued destruction of both parties.
FIFY.


Thanks, but between this and the upcoming criminal prosecution of the Democrats intelligence felons it's a dream come true
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No one on either team will ever spend a day in jail thanks to jury nullification. There will always be at least one tRumpist on any jury in a prosecution of traitorous Republicans and several functioning adults on any jury in a prosecution of a Democrat. You only need to get to one juror to have a mistrial. A Democrat actually has a chance to get acquitted while a Republican would have virtually no chance because the odds of getting 12 morons on a jury are nil.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

B.A. Bearacus said:

Anarchistbear said:

oski003 said:

without partisan leaks to the media


They aren't leaks- they are reports by the prosecutors. It is interesting as theater and I enjoy the continued destruction of both parties.
FIFY.


Thanks, but between this and the upcoming criminal prosecution of the Democrats intelligence felons it's a dream come true


There won't be any indictments of the law enforcement community that investigated Trump (very few of them Democrats). There will be selective, partisan leaks from the investigation that help Trump through the 2020 election. The investigation will be wrapped up shortly thereafter without any indictments. Oski0003 won't complain about those leaks.

Republican Robert Mueller indicted 34 people.
An old white dude
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
" President Trump has called members of the press "enemies of the people," deemed critical coverage "fake," accused news organizations of treason and threatened to make it easier to sue journalists for libel.

But not until this week had Mr. Trump turned to the ultimate recourse of the unhappy reader: He canceled his subscription.

Officials in the West Wing on Thursday announced that copies of The Washington Post and The New York Times would no longer be delivered to the White House. The administration is moving to force other federal agencies to end their subscriptions to the papers, as well.

"Not renewing subscriptions across all federal agencies will be a significant cost saving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars will be saved," the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, said in a statement." NY Times
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Three years later, evaluating the 10 laws Trump said he'd pass in his first 100 days - The Washington Post


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/25/three-years-later-evaluating-laws-trump-said-hed-pass-his-first-days/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Quote:
But Mr. Trump's abrupt decision to withdraw American forces from northern Syria disrupted the meticulous planning and forced Pentagon officials to press ahead with a risky, night raid before their ability to control troops and spies and reconnaissance aircraft disappeared, according to military, intelligence and counterterrorism officials. Mr. al-Baghdadi's death, they said, occurred largely in spite of Mr. Trump's actions.

The officials praised the Kurds, who continued to provide information to the C.I.A. on Mr. al-Baghdadi even after Mr. Trump's decision to withdraw the American troops left the Syrian Kurds to confront a Turkish offensive alone. The Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, one official said, provided more intelligence for the raid than any single country.

...

Mr. Trump was more descriptive. "[Mr. al-Baghdadi] died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way." The president said that Mr. Baghdadi "had dragged three of his young children with him," and that the Islamic State leader "ignited himself, killing himself and the three children."
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Speaker Pelosi Says White House Kept Congress in the Dark on al-Baghdadi Raid, But Informed Russia

(WASHINGTON) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is criticizing the White House for failing to notify congressional leaders before the U.S. raid in Syria that President Donald Trump says killed the leader of the Islamic State group.

She notes that the U.S. let Russia know the raid was in the works.

https://time.com/5711752/nancy-pelosi-trump-isis-raid-russia/

Mean while...Putin rejects Trump did anything. Confused?

B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


It's this kind of talk that creates thousand year enemies. The Islamic world has recorded history for a very long time and rarely forgets anything. Just a dumbass move by Trump to do IS's recruiting for them.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Mr. Trump was more descriptive. "[Mr. al-Baghdadi] died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way." The president said that Mr. Baghdadi "had dragged three of his young children with him," and that the Islamic State leader "ignited himself, killing himself and the three children."
Forgetting the obvious lack of dignity to speak this way and what terrible statesmanship it is to be unable to deliver an even-handed presidential sounding announcement, to take obvious pleasure and gloat in the gory details is just one more symptom of a terrible terrible person.

This sadist goes on national television on Sunday a day of church service (I am sure he was on his way to mass cuz he just loves himself that Bible and Christianity) at a time when kids would be seeing him speak, and he paints these images of terror, crying, suicide, death of children, and our country proudly boasting about death and the way the victim suffered. That is beyond screwed up. You can deliver the information without the details and by describing it is a necessary military action that makes the world safer. That's it. You know, like person who believes Thou Shall Not Kill from his favorite book.

Absolute barbarism and frontal-lobed, lizard-brained psychology...oh, and glad you gave Russia that plug BEFORE the US military.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm sure we will be hearing from all the conservatives who criticized Obama for "spiking the football" or "taking credit away from the troops" and who will now speak up against Trump for doing the same thing and more.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


It's a GOP thing to gloat or prematurely dump their load. Trump just does it like a small handed Bone Spur Chickenhawk.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We are all these Nationals fans.


Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And now we know why Trump didn't throw out the first pitch. It would have been solid 3 minutes of LOCK HIM UP...on national TV.

p.s. Trump requested to sit next to the Nats owners but they refused, said they didn't want to be put in that position, so he sat with MLB execs.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

And now we know why Trump didn't throw out the first pitch. It would have been solid 3 minutes of LOCK HIM UP...on national TV.

p.s. Trump requested to sit next to the Nats owners but they refused, said they didn't want to be put in that position, so he sat with MLB execs.


Bill Maher said tRump didn't throw out the first pitch because it makes his boobs jiggle too much. Bill also said tRump has promised assistance to California for the wildfires....conditioned on the state digging up dirt on Joe Biden.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Poor trump. Maybe he should've built up the dude he killed who few have heard as a boogeyman so that everybody would be more grateful.



 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.