White House has settled in

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

Not news to anyone, but he said the quiet, evil stuff out loud.


Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FCCK TURTLE BOI...major league arsehole.

Let's hope Amy McGrath, a retired Marine fighter pilot can take down the idiot.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I like that, it's an "impeachment referral".
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, it's up to Congress.
If not for DOJ policy regarding a sitting President, this would be a criminal matter.
The Russians interfered with the 2016 election.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd call that marching orders for Congress.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booker: "Robert Mueller's statement makes it clear: Congress has a legal and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately."

Amash: "The ball is in our court, Congress."

SHS: "After two years, the Special Counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same."

ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"The constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing"

I understand what that means. You know what that means. But do you really believe the idiots watching Fox News understand what that means. By being so f'ing vague, he allows the republicans to argue stupid **** like this.....



I understand why mueller believes it's "unfair" to just say "the dude is guilty, but we can't indict so it's up to congress" because mueller believes you can't accuse when the accused can't defend himself in court. However that's a fairly nuanced justification that maybe (at best) 50% of the country understands.

It comes down to the classic question. Is it ok to fudge your principles just a tiny tiny bit for the greater good.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

It comes down to the classic question. Is it ok to fudge your principles just a tiny tiny bit for the greater good.
Seems like this capability should be in Robert Mueller's dna. Republicans have become masters of situational ethics (as opposed to what I will refer to as ethics classic).
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From the ignored token news division at Fox:
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pelosi:
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Of all people, Geraldo Rivera perfectly encapsulates my feelings



What I'm sure mueller understands is that impeachment proceedings ain't going to happen unless public opinion shifts a bit. What mueller said today maybe nudges public opinion in the right direction, but he could've helped a brother out and dealt at least pocket 10's instead of relying on the American public to decipher his carefully worded legal statement.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:


It does involve deuces: the president repeatedly dropping a deuce on our country.

His ass needs to be impeached so that his actions are not considered an acceptable new norm -- consequences be damned.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As I recall Watergate and Nixon as a kid, the one thing I remember vividly was the OUTRAGE. I remember the old man coming home from work popping a beer and turning on the news and by the end he's be seething, ready to kill someone.

What Mueller's style has allowed is for the GOP to bury the whole mess and kill the moral outrage a shovel of dirt at a time. That's what the Rudy G gibberish was about, same with *****abee Slanders.

I get Pelosi's POV: have to have the congressional investigations lined up and ready to drop but not until you see the whites of their eyes, so to speak.

The thing is, she should let some Congress members loose to rattle the cages. The GOP Amash is gaining steam...take a cue from him. MORAL OUTRAGE is what's needed...not looking down at your damn phone. The lemming approach doesn't work. If I'm Pelosi I appoint a internal ATTACK committee to stoke the fire and punch the GOP in the throat. It's the only thing they understand.

It's go time...

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

(2) Please read my report, because election interference deserves the attention of every American and when a subject of an investigation obstructs or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

(3) Please read my report because it explains why we couldn't charge POTUS with a crime, but that doesn't mean he didn't obstruct justice, and as I say in the report (read it!) if we had confidence that POTUS clearly didn't commit a crime we would have said that but we didn't.

(4) Beyond that, please stop fussing about the legal niceties and just read my report. Seriously, please read the report because the facts described there are really important and should inform whatever comes next, which is up to you all.

(5) Please read my report because because it says everything I have to say on this topic and I have nothing more to say beyond what is in the report.

(6) Please read my report rather than subpoenaing me to testify, because if you do I am just going to read the report as my answer to every question and I will do so in a halting monotone maybe without even making eye contact, so why don't you just read it yourselves, without me.

(7) In case I haven't made it clear, I am saying you should read my report. Then do whatever you think you need to do. So, in conclusion, read the report. Have a nice day.

BA comment: Republicans ain't reading no damn report.

kelly09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

"The constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing"

I understand what that means. You know what that means. But do you really believe the idiots watching Fox News understand what that means. By being so f'ing vague, he allows the republicans to argue stupid **** like this.....



I understand why mueller believes it's "unfair" to just say "the dude is guilty, but we can't indict so it's up to congress" because mueller believes you can't accuse when the accused can't defend himself in court. However that's a fairly nuanced justification that maybe (at best) 50% of the country understands.

It comes down to the classic question. Is it ok to fudge your principles just a tiny tiny bit for the greater good.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/mueller-just-proved-his-entire-operation-was-a-political-hit-job-that-trampled-the-rule-of-law/#.XO7Eeeathj0.twitter
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kelly09 said:


https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/mueller-just-proved-his-entire-operation-was-a-political-hit-job-that-trampled-the-rule-of-law/#.XO7Eeeathj0.twitter
GTFO of here with this. Who gives a **** on here what this guy says?

Sean Davis: "Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law."

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Federalist is a RWNJ website...despite the regal name and faux governmental reference. It gets a hard right rating.



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:


(2) Please read my report, because election interference deserves the attention of every American and when a subject of an investigation obstructs or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

(3) Please read my report because it explains why we couldn't charge POTUS with a crime, but that doesn't mean he didn't obstruct justice, and as I say in the report (read it!) if we had confidence that POTUS clearly didn't commit a crime we would have said that but we didn't.

(4) Beyond that, please stop fussing about the legal niceties and just read my report. Seriously, please read the report because the facts described there are really important and should inform whatever comes next, which is up to you all.

(5) Please read my report because because it says everything I have to say on this topic and I have nothing more to say beyond what is in the report.

(6) Please read my report rather than subpoenaing me to testify, because if you do I am just going to read the report as my answer to every question and I will do so in a halting monotone maybe without even making eye contact, so why don't you just read it yourselves, without me.

(7) In case I haven't made it clear, I am saying you should read my report. Then do whatever you think you need to do. So, in conclusion, read the report. Have a nice day.

BA comment: Republicans ain't reading no damn report.


This goes the heart of why the GOP denounce education, defund it, want charter school and don't want informed citizens. Welcome to post-literate America.
kelly09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

kelly09 said:


https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/mueller-just-proved-his-entire-operation-was-a-political-hit-job-that-trampled-the-rule-of-law/#.XO7Eeeathj0.twitter
GTFO of here with this. Who gives AF on here what this guy says?

Sean Davis: "Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law."


Bearacus...KMA!
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kelly09 said:



Bearacus...KMA!
If you're coming strong to the hole with "Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law" from a hard right, yellow-toothed Texas Tech finance major, then sorry, but the store is...


Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't most wing nuts order a side of Russkie golden showers to go with the ass kissing?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
With institutional racism deeply woven into the fabric of the military, it makes one wonder if tRump has generated enough hatred and fear (the siblings of racism) that he could muster the backing of the military and declare the 2020 Election void if he is not re-elected.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/navy-reviewing-wearing-of-trump-patches-aboard-ship/2019/05/28/98306112-8184-11e9-b585-e36b16a531aa_story.html%3foutputType=amp




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?

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


I would definitely take advantage of this photo by starting to commit war crimes asap, as my president, who understands what the patch stands for (wink-wink), has my back.

B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm liking this pro Trump Navy.

okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's what I like about Trump. He's a brave man who isn't afraid to do unpopular things that offend the snowflakes.

GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Conservative publication: biased facts! Not credible

Liberal publication: they're just being reasonable

It's fun to see the LWNJs get their hopes up like:



When nothing comes of it they be like:





bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Conservative publication: biased facts! Not credible

Liberal publication: they're just being reasonable




I actually think Conservative media can be Fair and Balanced, particularly their 1st string legal analysts:

Judge Andrew Napolitano: President Trump Obstructed

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/video/judge-andrew-napolitano-president-trump-obstructed/%3famp

Robert Mueller's public statement was 'not good news' for President Trump: Judge Napolitano

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-napolitano-robert-mueller-trump

...and then some of their news journalists:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1133822892523905029?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:


Why is pocket deuces always dismissed as a bad hand? It's a better hand than A/K when heads up....
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

I'm liking this pro Trump Navy.






The White House requested this. Would any of our Conservative brethren here be willing to share their thoughts on this matter?

I conclude with this thought:

I can understand people not agreeing with the philosophy of the Democrats. I can understand people being attracted to the Republican philosophy. What I fail to understand is how any person of good will and conscience can support a man that conducts himself in the manner that Donald J. Trump does.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
OneKeg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

ducky23 said:


Why is pocket deuces always dismissed as a bad hand? It's a better hand than A/K when heads up....
I also like 2-2 late position, either limping in or being among multiple callers of a single raise when chip stacks are large compared to the blinds. If a 2 comes on the flop to give you a set, it's a great disguised/sleeper hand to win a big pot, possibly doubling up. If not, fold it for minimal loss (or as always, possibly bluff if you read weakness).

On topic, I have no idea if proceeding to impeach is the right move. I could see it helping with overall Dem turnout in 2020, but maybe primarily in the already blue states. It might hurt overall in the all important Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania swing triad, since it will surely rally the Repub base too. Same with Florida. Who knows which effect will be greater.

That Trump actually deserves to be impeached for obstruction of justice (and emoluments clause issues) is beyond question in my mind, but deserve has nothing to do with it unfortunately. With the utterly amoral MM and fellow Repubs in the Senate, it's not actually going to happen. Just a question if forcing them to explicitly (rather than implicitly) block it is a good move for 2020.
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.