|
Post by peano on Nov 29, 2018 23:46:06 GMT
WaPo: Republican Sen. Tim Scott says he will block confirmation of Trump judicial nominee amid racial controversy
Sen. Tim Scott announced Thursday that he would oppose the nomination of President Trump’s judicial pick Thomas A. Farr, ending a bitter confirmation fight centered on questions over how much Farr knew about a decades-old effort to disenfranchise black voters in North Carolina.
The decision from Scott, the Senate’s sole black Republican, came after the publication of a Justice Department memo in The Washington Post that Scott said raised concerns about Farr’s involvement in a controversial “ballot security” campaign. Farr was a lawyer for the campaign of Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) in 1984 and in 1990, when it sent out postcards that the department later said were sent to intimidate black voters from heading to the polls.
“I am ready and willing to support strong candidates for our judicial vacancies that do not have lingering concerns about issues that could affect their decision-making process as a federal judge, and I am proud that Senate Republicans have confirmed judges at an historical rate over the past two years,” Scott (S.C.) said in a statement Thursday afternoon.
Scott continued: “This week, a Department of Justice memo written under President George H.W. Bush was released that shed new light on Mr. Farr’s activities. This, in turn, created more concerns. Weighing these important factors, this afternoon I concluded that I could not support Mr. Farr’s nomination.”
Earlier, Senate Republican leaders postponed a vote on Farr, attributed to the absence of one Republican senator because of a family situation.
Vice President Pence was called upon Wednesday to break a 50-to-50 tie on a procedural vote to advance the nomination. Scott voted in favor of that motion.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who joined all 49 members of the Democratic caucus on the procedural vote, has vowed to oppose all judicial nominations until the chamber votes on legislation that he is seeking that would protect special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
In an interview with The Washington Post on Thursday, Flake signaled that he would oppose Farr based on his credentials.
“The Farr nomination, I’ve been uncomfortable with, and I wouldn’t support that even without the Mueller issue,” Flake said.
Trump nominated Farr to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina that has been vacant longer than any other current opening across the country. President Barack Obama’s nominees — both African American women — did not receive hearings in the Senate.
Republicans in control of the North Carolina General Assembly had hired Farr and others in his law firm to defend congressional boundaries approved in 2011. In 2016, a federal court struck down the map as racial gerrymandering.
Farr also helped defend a 2013 voter ID law that was considered one of the strictest in the nation. In addition to requiring residents to show identification before they could cast a ballot, the law also eliminated same-day voter registration, got rid of seven days of early voting and ended out-of-precinct voting.
A federal court ruled in 2016 that the primary purpose of North Carolina’s law wasn’t to stop voter fraud but to disenfranchise minority voters. The judges wrote that the law targeted African Americans “with almost surgical precision,” in part because the only acceptable forms of voter identification were ones disproportionately used by white people.
The Helms campaign received scrutiny for distributing postcards that the Justice Department later said were meant to intimidate black voters.
Scott said Wednesday that he spoke with the author of a 1991 Justice Department memo that sheds some light on the episode. Scott said he had to speak to the author again “and continue to look at what role [Farr] did play at every facet of the process.”
Farr has denied playing any role in drafting the postcards.
The issue appeared to be of renewed interest Thursday to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who previously has been supportive of Farr.
“I’m doing research on that,” Collins said of the DOJ memo.
The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Farr’s confirmation with a party-line vote in January.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said Thursday that it was important to recognize that Farr, as a lawyer, was representing the North Carolina legislature and not expressing his own views in the cases that have drawn scrutiny.
“You ought to represent the views of those who pay you,” Grassley said. “So if the legislature wanted the positions of their laws defended in the courts, then that’s what he was doing. So how can that be an accusation against him?”
Grassley said he also put great stock in the judgment of the two Republican senators from North Carolina — Richard Burr and Thom Tillis — who support Farr.
“You gotta remember, the people that are backing him are credible people,” Grassley said. “I mean, we would be questioning Burr and Tillis’s judgment, and they know him.”
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was among those who met with Scott on Thursday to talk more about Farr’s nomination.
Rubio said he has seen nothing that would lead him to change his mind about supporting Farr.
“Not based on the information I have before me, but obviously we’re continuing to engage with our colleagues who have an interest in this and learning more,” he said. “But as of now, I haven’t seen anything so far anyway that would change my opinion.”
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 29, 2018 23:48:45 GMT
Yes, for federal, not state. Believe it or not, state will often have heavier sentences. But that's only if the state decides to bring charges, is that right? I can guarantee you state will indict. NY State, for one. I don’t know if you’ll recall this (this was quite some time ago), but NY Atty Gen Schneiderman was heavily involved in Mueller’s investigation of Manafort. When Mueller filed charges, he did not include several fraud and tax charges. It was generally believed then that Mueller intended this so that if Trump pardons Manafort, NY State can bring charges on those. For example, when it comes to tax fraud, when you defraud the federal government, you also defraud state. So long as there is a state statute that applies to the crime prosecuted at the federal level, the state can also prosecute.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 29, 2018 23:55:20 GMT
For crimsoncat05HOW SCARED SHOULD TRUMP BE OF MUELLER? ASK JOHN GOTTI OR SAMMY “THE BULL”If history is any guide, Mueller will put up with 19 murders to get his mark. BY HOWARD BLUM DECEMBER 1, 2017 6:31 PM Ten South, the high-security wing of the Metropolitan Correctional Center, in Lower Manhattan, is, by design, as grim as any corner of hell. A half dozen narrow cells are lined one after the other, the overhead lights glow day and night, and the tiny window in each cell is frosted, allowing only an opaque hint of the world beyond the prison. There’s a slot in the solid cell door, but it’s kept shut most of the time, and so the prisoner’s unvarying horizon stretches as far as the four cinderblock walls. Only small noises intrude: the chatter of guards, the slamming of cell doors, the high-pitched moan of an inmate. For over a year, stretching from 1990 to 1991, 10 South was the forbidding home of the triumvirate that still ruled the Gambino crime family as they awaited trial—John Gotti, Frank Locascio, and Sammy Gravano. But in the first days of October 1991, a cunning plan began to take shape to covertly transfer Sammy the Bull, in the pre-dawn hours, from his inhospitable cell. Today, nearly three eventful decades later, what makes this Great Escape more than just a faded episode from yesteryear’s gangland chronicles, but rather relevant and even instructive, is the identity of the man who ultimately had to sign off on the operation: then U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Robert Mueller. This is, of course, the same hard-driving crime fighter who, as special counsel, is presently leading the federal investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. For months, Mueller has been working his way up the Trump food chain, beginning with a guilty plea by campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, and, more recently, a 12-count indictment against former campaign manager Paul Manafort. (Manafort has pleaded not guilty.) On Friday, after meetings to discuss a deal, the president’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, walked into a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C., and pleaded guilty in an arrangement that reportedly includes his testimony against more campaign officials, possibly including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and the president himself. It is, one person close the administration recently observed, a “classic Gambino-style roll-up.” To understand how Mueller might now proceed, to get a sense of the compromises he’d be willing to make to bag the larger prosecutorial targets in his sights, it’s eye-opening to go back to the deal he cut with Sammy the Bull. Flynn photographed leaving the Courthouse after pleading guilty to ties with Russia on December 1st. Flynn photographed leaving the Courthouse after pleading guilty to ties with Russia on December 1st. By Aaron P. Bernstein/Bloomberg/Getty Images. When Gravano sent word from his cell in 10 South that he wanted to meet with the F.B.I., and that, more pointedly, he wanted to speak to them alone, the overwhelming suspicion was that it was more bull from the Bull. Robert Mueller didn’t believe it. And neither did Bruce Mouw, the head of the F.B.I.’s C-16 team that had painstakingly built the case against Gotti and his henchmen. As Mouw told me years ago, when I was writing my book Gangland, both Mueller and he, as well as just about everyone else involved in the case, thought it was a gangster’s scam. Ignore him, was the dismissive consensus. We’d be giving his lawyer—then Ben Brafman, the same canny criminal attorney now shaping Harvey Weinstein’s defense)—ammunition to hurl back at us with incriminating innuendo in the courtroom. But Mueller had the final say, and he ordered the F.B.I. to arrange the interview—ensuring that it was done as covertly as any mob sit-down. Ten South was, after all, little more than a narrow corridor, a self-contained universe of adjacent cells. Gravano’s was flanked on one side by mob boss John Gotti, and on the other by the Family consigliere, Frankie Loc. If either of them, men who lived by the kill-or-be-killed rules of their ruthless profession, suspected that the Bull was contemplating becoming a rat, the news would swiftly be passed on to the avenging Gambino family foot soldiers. And Sammy would be a marked man. The shrewd specifics of the plan that ultimately went forward was conceived by Mouw, who had studied strategy at Annapolis in a previous life. On the morning of October 10, 1991, Gravano was escorted from his cell with deliberate pageantry by a phalanx of guards for a scheduled appointment. The ostensible purpose was to conduct a voice-analysis test; the government wanted to be able to distinguish the Bull’s words from the rumble of muttering tough-guy voices on a series of surreptitiously recorded tapes. Gotti and Frankie Loc had each already suffered through similar sessions. Brafman was at his client’s side throughout the tedious procedure. After the voice test was concluded, Brafman dutifully watched as the F.B.I. agents escorted Gravano to the secure elevator that would take him downstairs, and then the attorney also left. But no sooner had Gravano’s elevator descended to the basement then one of the F.B.I. agents hit the up button—and Sammy was soon back in the conference room. Neither his own attorney nor the wise guys with whom he shared the tenth floor of the M.C.C. had any idea of the momentous meeting that was about to begin. Once everyone was seated—between the government attorneys and the F.B.I. agents there was, Mouw would say, about a half dozen anxious people in the room—Sammy began without prelude. “I want to switch sides,” he announced flatly. It is not difficult to imagine the tortured debate within Mueller’s mind as he weighed the decision. He could allow Sammy, a man who had admittedly killed 19 men, to play for Uncle Sam’s team. Or he could go into the Gotti trial knowing that Teflon Don—the swaggering crime boss who had walked away from three prior trials—could once again get away with murder. Pulling him in one direction was a lifetime of rectitude: a lofty moral code passed on by his education at St. Paul’s School, Princeton University, and the Marine Corps. And doubtlessly pulling him in another direction was a fair share of ambition. He’d be the man who brought down John Gotti, and the world would unquestionably be a better place for it. As Mueller contemplated making his Faustian deal, there is no institutional record that he spoke directly to Gravano. But I did on several occasions. The time that is embedded most vividly in my memory occurred during a meal we shared when he was living under an assumed name in Arizona. “First time I killed,” Sammy told me between bites of salmon with dill sauce, “before I pulled the trigger, I wondered how I would feel. Taking a life and all that. But I felt nothing afterwards . . . No remorse. Just ice.” He rambled on introspectively for a bit and then abruptly pointed his fork toward an adjacent booth in the restaurant. “See that blonde over there?” he asked. I nodded and stared at a tanned woman in a low-cut dress. “See that guy with her?” I looked at a man in a suit and tie, his mouth wide open as he laughed with apparent delight at something the woman had said. “I could go over there, pop him in the back of the head, and come back here and finish my salmon. I know it’s supposed to bother me, but it don’t.” But it was bothering me. Why was Sammy the Bull telling me this? Then, without any prodding from me, he explained. “I still don’t like being double-crossed. You just should know I could kill you in a second flat. I’m not threatening you. I’m not saying I would if you double-crossed me. I’m just saying I could. You see the difference?” I definitely did not, and I thought the time had come to make my position clear. “See that waitress?” I ask. Across from us was a diminutive teenager, as small and thin as a gymnast. “I’d be afraid to double-cross her. She could take me.” With that bit of submission out of the way, our conversation soon found a more fruitful path. But did Robert Mueller ever get a first-hand hint of Sammy the stone-cold killer? The answer to that question remains part of the secret history of the Gotti case. All that is known with certainty is that Mueller agreed to the deal that would make Gravano the government’s star witness, the lynchpin of the federal case. In return, a murderer with 19 notches on his gun would wind up spending not much more time in jail than a deadbeat dad. It was Mouw who, accompanied by a single other agent, came to escort Gravano from his cell in 10 South and lead him to his shiny new life as a witness for the prosecution, and he deliberately chose a time when he hoped none of the other inmates would notice. But the shuffle of feet, the opening of doors, and even the whispered voices carried through the tunnel-like corridor of the high-security wing. And all at once John Gotti was on his feet, and he let out a piercing wail as he recognized the act of betrayal that was unfolding just outside his cell door. The plaintive scream, Mouw would say, seemed to echo throughout the entire prison, bouncing off the walls and filling every bit of space. It was a sustained and powerful noise. And he imagined he could still hear the Don’s lamentations as he hustled Gravano into the back of the Chevrolet parked on the street 10 floors below. Gotti’s lawyer labored hard to make something of the fatuous hypocrisy that secured the government’s case. At one point he gestured to where the 12 jurors were seated and proclaimed that there weren’t enough seats to prop up the corpses of all the men that Gravano had killed. It was a nice bit of theatre, but in the end, when the curtain fell, Gotti was—at last!—found guilty. And Robert Mueller, who would go on to head the F.B.I., had discovered the logic that is the unwritten precept in any treatise on the art of the deal: winning is better than losing. It is ample justification for most any compromise. Now, as special counsel, he is once again making deals. He is still determined to get his man at all costs. First he flipped Papadopoulos. And then his office met with Robert Kelner, Michael Flynn’s lawyer. Many accusations were swirling around Flynn, including, not least, his alleged role in a complicated plot to kidnap Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen in return for a $15 million payday (a charge his lawyer has adamantly denied on his client’s behalf). But on Friday the deal was cut: Flynn was charged with one felony count of making a false statement to the F.B.I. regarding his potentially incriminating conversations with the Russian ambassador. In return for getting off with what amounts to little more than a slap on his bony wrist—the maximum sentence the former general now faces is five years—Flynn will soon have to keep his side of the bargain. Can there be any doubt that the general who had chanted “Lock her up!” at the Republican National Convention has, like Gravano, agreed “to change sides?” Or is there any doubt that Mueller has brought Flynn into his fold because he has his eye fixed, once again, on bigger prey? Rumors as to who told Flynn to talk to the Russians, and what he was told to say, are already swirling. Multiple reports on Friday fingered Jared Kushner, in what legal experts have suggested could be a violation of the Logan Act—a potentially outdated law, which makes it illegal for a private citizen to undermine U.S. policy in negotiation with a foreign power, but one that Mueller may use nonetheless. It is not difficult to imagine the wail of indignation, a keening and self-righteous outburst that would rival John Gotti’s at his moment of betrayed shock, that might rise out of the Oval Office when Flynn’s testimony finds its target. www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/how-scared-should-trump-be-of-mueller-ask-john-gotti-or-sammy-the-bull
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:45:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 0:05:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Nov 30, 2018 0:22:02 GMT
Rumors as to who told Flynn to talk to the Russians, and what he was told to say, are already swirling. Multiple reports on Friday fingered Jared Kushner, in what legal experts have suggested could be a violation of the Logan Act—a potentially outdated law, which makes it illegal for a private citizen to undermine U.S. policy in negotiation with a foreign power, but one that Mueller may use nonetheless. It is not difficult to imagine the wail of indignation, a keening and self-righteous outburst that would rival John Gotti’s at his moment of betrayed shock, that might rise out of the Oval Office when Flynn’s testimony finds its target. www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/how-scared-should-trump-be-of-mueller-ask-john-gotti-or-sammy-the-bullI can only hope Kushners cel is in similar condition to the things he put renters thru in Maryland. THAT would be Karma
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Nov 30, 2018 0:39:02 GMT
lizacreates If I understood correctly when I read it during the Kavanaugh hearings, this ability to be charged at the state and federal level for the same crimes, was going in front of the Supreme Court (I think towards the front of their docket) this session. Is that correct? If so, has it come up yet? My old iPad ate my bookmarks so an can’t find the information I had saved to keep an eye on it.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 30, 2018 0:41:30 GMT
lizacreates If I understood correctly when I read it during the Kavanaugh hearings, this ability to be charged at the state and federal level for the same crimes, was going in front of the Supreme Court (I think towards the front of their docket) this session. Is that correct? If so, has it come up yet? My old iPad ate my bookmarks so an can’t find the information I had saved to keep an eye on it. hhhhmmmmmm
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 30, 2018 0:56:07 GMT
lizacreates If I understood correctly when I read it during the Kavanaugh hearings, this ability to be charged at the state and federal level for the same crimes, was going in front of the Supreme Court (I think towards the front of their docket) this session. Is that correct? If so, has it come up yet? My old iPad ate my bookmarks so an can’t find the information I had saved to keep an eye on it. Yeah, the Gamble case concerning the dual sovereign doctrine. Right now, mostly just briefs from supporters of both sides. December 5 is when oral arguments are scheduled to begin.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 30, 2018 0:59:06 GMT
lizacreates If I understood correctly when I read it during the Kavanaugh hearings, this ability to be charged at the state and federal level for the same crimes, was going in front of the Supreme Court (I think towards the front of their docket) this session. Is that correct? If so, has it come up yet? My old iPad ate my bookmarks so an can’t find the information I had saved to keep an eye on it. Yeah, the Gamble case concerning the dual sovereign doctrine. Right now, mostly just briefs from supporters of both sides. December 5 is when oral arguments are scheduled to begin. This is really scary. Is it something that the SC could push through & vote on before the new congress takes over? Or could they even stop it if the SC passed it? No wonder Trump was so gung-ho on the SC justices. He's gonna be king.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Nov 30, 2018 1:03:07 GMT
lizacreates If I understood correctly when I read it during the Kavanaugh hearings, this ability to be charged at the state and federal level for the same crimes, was going in front of the Supreme Court (I think towards the front of their docket) this session. Is that correct? If so, has it come up yet? My old iPad ate my bookmarks so an can’t find the information I had saved to keep an eye on it. Yeah, the Gamble case concerning the dual sovereign doctrine. Right now, mostly just briefs from supporters of both sides. December 5 is when oral arguments are scheduled to begin. Thanks! How long until a ruling is likely made? I’m wondering if it will be in time to offer Manafort some protection.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 30, 2018 1:15:42 GMT
I can only hope Kushners cel is in similar condition to the things he put renters thru in Maryland. THAT would be Karma Yes, this!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:45:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 1:21:03 GMT
Robert Maquire...
“Days like this serve as reminders that
1) The "Witch Hunt" keeps nabbing witches
2) "Fake news" stories keep getting confirmed by court filings”
It sure does.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 30, 2018 1:35:36 GMT
Yeah, the Gamble case concerning the dual sovereign doctrine. Right now, mostly just briefs from supporters of both sides. December 5 is when oral arguments are scheduled to begin. Thanks! How long until a ruling is likely made? I’m wondering if it will be in time to offer Manafort some protection. (Also for flute4peace) Hard to tell. The SC doesn’t sit everyday for oral arguments in all the cases in the docket. It’s usually two weeks in a month when they hear arguments for one or more cases, and only Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays (I’m going by memory, so cut me some slack on this). The decision phase takes a long time - they conference, then vote, write the majority opinion, write the dissenting opinions, etc. This will be a landmark case so I'm assuming the justices will take a long time to decide.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 30, 2018 2:00:57 GMT
Thanks! How long until a ruling is likely made? I’m wondering if it will be in time to offer Manafort some protection. (Also for flute4peace ) Hard to tell. The SC doesn’t sit everyday for oral arguments in all the cases in the docket. It’s usually two weeks in a month when they hear arguments for one or more cases, and only Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays (I’m going by memory, so cut me some slack on this). The decision phase takes a long time - they conference, then vote, write the majority opinion, write the dissenting opinions, etc. This will be a landmark case so I'm assuming the justices will take a long time to decide. I really appreciate your patience and sharing your knowledge. I'm a political newbie.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 2:04:54 GMT
Crap! I just posted a shit ton on the other thread lololol
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 2:07:44 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 2:09:27 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 2:10:28 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 2:11:09 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 2:12:21 GMT
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 30, 2018 2:24:25 GMT
(Also for flute4peace ) Hard to tell. The SC doesn’t sit everyday for oral arguments in all the cases in the docket. It’s usually two weeks in a month when they hear arguments for one or more cases, and only Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays (I’m going by memory, so cut me some slack on this). The decision phase takes a long time - they conference, then vote, write the majority opinion, write the dissenting opinions, etc. This will be a landmark case so I'm assuming the justices will take a long time to decide. I really appreciate your patience and sharing your knowledge. I'm a political newbie. Always my pleasure. You know I never say no to you, right? Especially after you created that epic Kavanaugh thread. Lol!
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 30, 2018 2:56:56 GMT
I really appreciate your patience and sharing your knowledge. I'm a political newbie. Always my pleasure. You know I never say no to you, right? Especially after you created that epic Kavanaugh thread. Lol! Oh dear LOL!! I think I bailed on that thread long before it ran it's course. I had to step away from the political threads for a while for my own mental health. I just looked and it's 48 pages. I'm sure my *uneducatedness* drives some folks crazy, but I truly do find it all fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Nov 30, 2018 4:20:01 GMT
I'm currently teaching Animal Farm to my high schoolers and then saw a headline about some spin Giuliani threw out there and I realized Giuliani and Sanders are both Squealer. Trump is Napoleon and the pigs and the dogs are many (if not most) people in the GOP. Republicans who blindly go along are the sheep. Boxer and clover are all the people who thought trump would cover them and he throws them under the bus. The rest of us are the animals and/or Benjamin.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:45:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 5:36:31 GMT
GOP...
Paul Ryan. “I think history is going to be very good to this majority.” -
Now that’s funny. What an idiot.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:45:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 5:40:29 GMT
trump 1/11/2017..
“Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!”
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,517
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on Nov 30, 2018 13:03:03 GMT
GOP... Paul Ryan. “I think history is going to be very good to this majority.” - Now that’s funny. What an idiot. He's probably planning to write his own history book with only 'the GOP' parts like Jefferson made his own special Bible.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Nov 30, 2018 13:39:53 GMT
GOP... Paul Ryan. “I think history is going to be very good to this majority.” - Now that’s funny. What an idiot. Really Paul? What are you basing that upon? The gain of 40 Democratic seats in Congress? Is that bluster or delusional thinking? I just don't get those guys.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:45:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 13:54:50 GMT
Robert Maquire... “Days like this serve as reminders that 1) The "Witch Hunt" keeps nabbing witches 2) "Fake news" stories keep getting confirmed by court filings” It sure does. F'in LOT of witches so far.....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:45:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 14:04:04 GMT
Wow
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:45:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 14:05:27 GMT
We have boycotted our local Sinclair station. No propaganda required in our home.
|
|