Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

You don't know Jack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Someone just can't admit that he was full of hot air regarding Trump's support of getting vaccinated.

    They now ignore how they said he promoted it only once and then quit after being booed since that B.S. statement got pounded into a fine pink mist by numerous citations.

    So they instead focus on his support being "tepid." That too is utter B.S. in that he was strongly advocating for getting vaxxed and boosted, but since he didn't think it should be mandated some hope to use that to confuse the issue.

    Just keep digging that hole deeper.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

      Trumps own investigation says you're wrong.

      [Oct 2017] In a legal settlement that still awaits a federal judge's approval, the IRS "expresses its sincere apology" for mistreating a conservative organization called Linchpins of Liberty — along with 40 other conservative groups — in their applications for tax-exempt status.

      And in a second case, NorCal Tea Party Patriots and 427 other groups suing the IRS also reached a "substantial financial settlement" with the government.

      [...]

      The consent order says the IRS admits it wrongly used "heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays" and demanded unnecessary information as it reviewed applications for tax-exempt status. The order says, "For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology."

      [...]

      The controversy began in 2013 when an IRS official admitted the agency had been aggressively scrutinizing groups with names such as "Tea Party" and "Patriots." It later emerged that liberal groups had been targeted, too, although in smaller numbers.

      https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/56030...rvative-groups

      So there are the basic facts: conservative groups were targeted explicitly with a small number of liberal groups getting caught in the net, although we know from other sources that in instances where a liberal group was inadvertently targeted, the cases were quickly settled by the IRS.

      But let's assume these facts are wrong, and that Jack Smith illegally targeted conservative and liberal groups equally. The question still must be asked: Is this really someone we want to head up a politically charged investigation?
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
        But it won't matter to the crowd that swift-boated lifelong Republican Bob Mueller, the most respected law enforcement officer in America on both sides of the aisle for no better reason than because he investigated TFG.

        It won't matter to the crowd that swift-boated Anthony Fauci, the most respected public health official in America for no better reason than because he contradicted TFG, for cause — because TFG was not merely wrong, but wrong in a way that endangered public health in America that was ultimately responsible for an anti-vaxx movement that is even today killing off 300 Americans a day, nearly all of whom are unvaccinated.

        Ironically, nearly all of whom are also their political co-belligerants.


        I am a political moderate, registered Independent since the 80s.

        I was raised a member of the party of Lincoln before giving up my registration when it became the party of Reagan. I judge parties by their adherence and respect for scientifically objective facts from the global warming to the theory of evolution. When scientific evidence moves against a previously held position, so do I. Necessarily, this puts me in opposition to the mainstream Republican party, but not to all Republicans. This puts me in opposition to some Democrats, but not to the mainstream Democratic party.


        I am not a liberal.
        .
        I will consider any accusation to the contrary on this thread to be deliberate dishonesty, or alternatively an unsubstantiated accusation of dishonesty on my part and respond by calling it out as such with a request to leave this thread, and if necessary a request I will escalate to the moderation team.


        This thread is about Jack Smith, the recently appointed Special Counsel, who he actually is, and who he is about to be swift-boated into becoming. Arguments in favor or in opposition to any of these positions are welcome, and more so if they come with third-party links that can serve to prevent ... arguments attacking the messengers, most especially if they are participants in this thread.

        Such arguments are not welcome here. Posters violating this principle will be asked to leave the thread.
        The thing is, you don't know jack either.

        In case you haven't noticed people who are set up in opposition to Trump tend to get glowing, saintly, write-ups that fluff them up regardless of what the truth about them might be. Look at all the glowing write-ups that were written about convicted fraud Michael Avenatti.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/m...ump-media.html

        Source: https://www.npr.org/2018/05/31/615768441/who-is-stormy-daniels-lawyer-michael-avenatti-and-who-is-helping-him

        If you turn on the TV news these days, it's difficult to miss Michael Avenatti.

        The lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels has been that way since his days in law school.

        Professor Jonathan Turley remembered Avenatti as one of the best students at George Washington University Law School — a guy who stood out in class.

        While at law school, Avenatti dabbled in politics, working on "nearly 150 campaigns in 42 states," according to a Super Lawyers profile from 2009. He spent five years working at a political consulting firm run by Rahm Emanuel, the future Obama White House chief of staff and Chicago mayor, and still managed to graduate first in his class. Before that, he grew up in St. Louis and transferred to the University of Pennsylvania after spending freshman year at St. Louis University. While at SLU, he worked on campaigns for local Democrats, including then-Rep. Dick Gephardt. The experience allowed him to meet Emanuel, he told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch earlier this month.

        Although Avenatti has worked for Democrats, he says he's not politically motivated. "I haven't done anything in politics in 20 years…my client is credible, she's telling the truth," he told CBS News' "60 Minutes" in an interview that aired Sunday.

        As an attorney, Avenatti has worked on suits against major accounting firms and celebrities like Paris Hilton. He even sued The Apprentice, Mr. Trump's reality TV show, and its producer Mark Burnett, on behalf of a client who said they had stolen his idea.

        © Copyright Original Source




        Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-avenatti-stormy-daniels-lawyer/

        Michael Avenatti, the attorney representing adult film star Stormy Daniels in her case against President Trump, has become a television fixture in recent weeks. Before taking on Daniels as a client earlier this year, he had built a reputation as an aggressive litigator who specialized in high-profile cases and clients.

        Jonathan Turley, a renowned legal scholar who taught Avenatti at George Washington University, describes his former student as "an adrenaline junky." Turley told the Washington Post recently that Avenatti, who moonlights as a professional race car driver, "needs that adrenaline rush. He lives his life aggressively. In both litigation and in life he shows a certain aggressive style."

        © Copyright Original Source





        Source: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/05/michael-avenatti-style

        Let it be known that Michael J. Avenatti does not work with a stylist. The telegenic, fashion-forward lawyer representing adult-film actress Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford), in her contract dispute with the president of the United States, has nevertheless turned quite a few heads over the past two months. In that period he has appeared on cable news more than 100 times, sporting a dazzling array of Tom Ford suits—he owns approximately 20 of them, a mix of made-to-measure and off the rack—and wide-striped Brioni ties with a thick Windsor knot.

        “I’ve always believed that the way one looks, for good or bad, is seen as a reflection of their capabilities,” Avenatti said in a recent phone call. “Aesthetics are critically important.”

        We are living in unusual times. Who could have ever predicted that an adult-film actress and her lawyer would turn out to be more buttoned-up than the army of attorneys handpicked by our self-proclaimed billionaire president?

        The Trump v. Daniels saga has proven, more than anything, how looks can be deceiving. Our ongoing fascination with the case has as much to do with its subversion of outward appearances as it has to do with a presidential sex scandal. Daniels has turned out to be a credible witness with a wicked sense of humor, a successful businesswoman, and a mother with a passion for the equestrian arts. And her lawyer, who a couple of months ago might have been dismissed as a flash-in-the-pan ambulance chaser, turns out to be a guy who graduated from a top-tier law school at the top of his class. In his fight with Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who attended Thomas M. Cooley Law School—according to Above The Law, the worst law school in the country—Avenatti has emerged as the unlikely voice of the underdog while out-classing a bunch of establishment schlubs with his impeccable style and cool-as-a-cucumber demeanor. (He’s attracted enough attention that a Crossfire-esque reboot, starring Avenatti and Trump White House alum Anthony Scaramucci, is reportedly being shopped to networks.)

        © Copyright Original Source




        Source: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/on-television/michael-avenatti-and-the-mooch-bring-their-blustering-banality-to-stephen-colbert

        On Wednesday night, eager for a preview of public-affairs programming in the post-apocalypse, I switched on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” which was débuting a double act. Michael Avenatti, the lawyer zealously representing Stormy Daniels, gained Colbert’s stage alongside Anthony Scaramucci, the banker who zestily represented President Trump, as White House communications director, for ten or eleven days last summer. Last month, the Times reported that a top talent agency had pitched networks a “Crossfire”-style series starring the pair. The “Colbert” appearance—“Talking Trump with the Mooch and Michael Avenatti,” a chyron read—was a pantomime of a duel flamboyantly waged with blunt objects.



        They made the stage, and Colbert said, “My first question is: What? What—what is this? And my follow up is: Why is this?” This was the high point of the proceedings. The studio audience giggled to hear its loss for words succinctly articulated. The host began a steady descent into postures of elaborate frustration and indignity. The guests grinned semi-sheepishly, in the way of veteran camera hogs, and responded to Colbert’s question about the possibility that they might share a show by lofting some practiced shtick.

        “I never do a show with a guy whose first name is ‘the,’ ” Avenatti said of the Mooch, who, while quietly relishing his cutie-pie nickname, promised an entertainment resembling “a male version of ‘Thelma & Louise.’ ” Colbert observed that the Trump Administration is “certainly driving the country off a cliff right now.”
        VIDEO FROM THE NEW YORKER

        In Flow of Words: Translating the Trauma of War

        Playing off a passing comment, Colbert called for wine. A stagehand produced a bottle of lukewarm rosé, and I hoped the segment might achieve the in-vino-veritas splendor of Hoda and Kathie Lee communing with Bacchus on “Today.” How naïve of me! As Avenatti and Scaramucci fielded questions regarding the insipidity of Michael Cohen, the incompetence of Rudy Giuliani, and the narcissism of the President, they evinced no chemistry, thank God. The nature of the discussion, and of the discussants’ personae, meant that the chat could never in any way resemble a debate.

        Avenatti, chomping out sound bites with the avidity that keeps cable-news bookers calling, spoke with a blaring voice of reason, occasionally punctuated with irrelevant boasts. (Lamenting the nonsense of Trump’s meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, Avenatti said, “I would have actually got a deal that mattered done,” rousing a few cheers from audience simply for deploying empty bluster to deride the Blusterer in Chief.) On the subject of Cohen, and of the troubles Trump would face in the event of his indictment, Avenatti said, “This is what happens when you trust your innermost secrets to a moron.” Addressing the same topic, Scaramucci said, “I don’t want to speculate” about the likelihood of Cohen’s indictment; he then proceeded to speculate about it, albeit in the most tepid and general terms. The Mooch, charting the difficult course of seeming hopeful about this Presidency without sounding like an outright cretin, demonstrated a tremendous aptitude for blandness. To his credit, his most memorable phrases involved the dropping of names, supplying evidence that he is so well connected that all television producers should be delighted to slather his banality across their airwaves.

        Talk turned toward the Trump Tower meeting of June 9, 2016, and the Administration’s deceptions about it. Scaramucci insisted that the meeting “was about the child-adoption situation.” Colbert, taken aback, reclined so deeply in his swivel chair that he seemed to melting out of it. Affronted, he called a lie a lie. Disgusted, he reached for the wine. What was this? It was a sideshow in the shadow of an emergency, a stab at comedy spun off from an escalating American tragedy.

        © Copyright Original Source




        All of this is to say that liberals love to fluff up people (and tear them down), so you trusting someone because a fluff piece was written about them is about as smart as someone believing a "swift boating".

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

          I accept my responsibility for bumping this issue with the caveat that it was only to correct information provided in the o/p that new reporting proved inaccurate. You should feel entirely free to respond to the o/p with discussion about Jack Smith.

          But it's time to end this derail.
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Someone just can't admit that he was full of hot air regarding Trump's support of getting vaccinated.

          They now ignore how they said he promoted it only once and then quit after being booed since that B.S. statement got pounded into a fine pink mist by numerous citations.

          So they instead focus on his support being "tepid." That too is utter B.S. in that he was strongly advocating for getting vaxxed and boosted, but since he didn't think it should be mandated some hope to use that to confuse the issue.

          Just keep digging that hole deeper.
          This derail is over. If you wish to continue this topic, put in a ticket to split the thread.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post



            This derail is over. If you wish to continue this topic, put in a ticket to split the thread.
            Meanwhile, glad I took your advice on Thanksgiving attire.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

              The thing is, you don't know jack either.

              In case you haven't noticed people who are set up in opposition to Trump tend to get glowing, saintly, write-ups that fluff them up regardless of what the truth about them might be. Look at all the glowing write-ups that were written about convicted fraud Michael Avenatti.

              [...]

              All of this is to say that liberals love to fluff up people (and tear them down), so you trusting someone because a fluff piece was written about them is about as smart as someone believing a "swift boating".
              It's only been a week, and investigative reporters have already uncovered Smith's direct involvement in the illegal targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. One can only wonder what other unsavory details will be uncovered as journalists continue to look into his background.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                This derail is over. If you wish to continue this topic, put in a ticket to split the thread.
                Funny how you suddenly declare the derail over only after you were proven wrong and without ever admitting your error.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  Funny how you suddenly declare the derail over only after you were proven wrong and without ever admitting your error.
                  Admitting one's error doesn't count for much around here.

                  But I did, and will again whenever I'm wrong.

                  (And, Jesse did acknowledge my admission with faint praise)
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                    Trump was at best a tepid proponent of the vaccines. His support ended when he was booed for promoting vaccination at a rally.
                    We have Trump getting booed in Alabama after telling people to get vaccinated back in the Summer of 2021. According to you his support ended at that point. But that wasn't even the first time.

                    A month earlier he was heckled in Arizona after saying that "I recommend you take [the vaccine]" even though he added "but I also believe in your freedoms 100 percent."

                    The month after getting booed in Alabama Trump was on the radio declaring that the vaccines work and "they are effective. So here’s my thing: I think I saved millions and millions of lives around the world."

                    And several months later, in December, Trump was still telling people at his rallies that they should get vaxxed in Texas and got booed.

                    A few days later, in an interview with Candace Owens, he still hadn't shut up about getting vaccinated and where he declared that "the vaccine is one of the greatest achievements of mankind." so much for "tepid" support.

                    Then in January, during yet another rally, he called Republicans who won't get vaxxed "gutless," which some saw as a swipe against DeSantis, who would not say whether he was vaxxed or not.

                    Also that month, Trump released a fundraising email which featured a "MUST-SEE: New Trump Ad" that touted Trump’s role in creating a "vaccine in record time, saving millions of lives." So, still not shutting up about it.

                    In April there were even a number of reports about how his support for vaccinations persuaded many who were opposed to them to get jabbed. Trump Helped Boost Vaccine Use After Endorsement in Online Ads and Trump’s endorsement of Covid-19 vaccines increased uptake in counties with low vaccination rates and Study finds Trump’s support of vaccines may have swayed some vaccine skeptics

                    Then in July 2022, at a rally in Alaska, Trump was still pushing getting vaccinated and remarking on how some criticize him for doing so, saying that "someday, we’re [him and his anti-vax supporters] going to have to all sit-down and have a little talk. But you know what? We did a hell of a job."

                    But if you rely on leftwing news sources you will get told the polar opposite. For instance, consider the last instance listed -- the one in Alaska. This is the reporting you got from Mother Jones: Trump Will Say Literally Anything—Except “Vaccines”

                    “Vaccine” is not a four-letter word, but don’t expect it to escape Trump’s lips anytime soon.

                    The former president tiptoed around the word last night at an Alaska rally in support of right-wing Republican candidates, including former Gov. Sarah Palin, who is running for the state’s lone House seat.


                    And yet they still go on to admit that Trump talked about vaccines, taking credit for "Operation Warp Speed" and "taking a not-so-subtle dig" at those in his base who oppose them. So even when forced to tell the truth the left first couches it in a deliberate lie.



                    Here is a recap of some of the times Trump was advocating for taking the vaccines.


                    Also WaPo recapping some of Trump's pro-vaxx statements in 2021: Dear Republicans: Your favorite president wants you to get vaccinated





                    ETA: Apologies. Just saw this:

                    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                    This derail is over. If you wish to continue this topic, put in a ticket to split the thread.



                    Of course it might have been nice if you acknowledged how you got everything backasswards before declaring you don't want to talk about it any more.
                    Last edited by rogue06; 11-25-2022, 09:35 AM.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                      The thing is, you don't know jack either.

                      In case you haven't noticed people who are set up in opposition to Trump tend to get glowing, saintly, write-ups that fluff them up regardless of what the truth about them might be. Look at all the glowing write-ups that were written about convicted fraud Michael Avenatti.

                      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/m...ump-media.html
                      Great story, too bad you didn't read it. That's being generous, holding out the possibility that you did and are deliberately misrepresenting it. I'm not seeing any derogatory information that was missed. There were things not known at the time, like the shopping mall investment, but the whole hit parade makes an appearance, mostly for the first time.

                      All of this is to say that liberals love to fluff up people (and tear them down), so you trusting someone because a fluff piece was written about them is about as smart as someone believing a "swift boating".
                      Lawfare doesn't do fluff and it's anything but a hotbed of liberals. Again, I'll be generous and assume you haven't done any legwork on this, but data point to more adverse conclusions.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Of course it might have been nice if you acknowledged how you got everything backasswards before declaring you don't want to talk about it any more.
                        It would be even nicer if you restrained your comments to the topic of the thread.

                        If you want to declare victory and go home, be my guest. If you want to continue the conversation, that's also an option, as spelled out in the post you're responding to. It's also an option to craft blatant lies about what I said, with the evidence that it's a lie there for God and everyone to see, and an option for me to note that this is your usual m.o. when the facts don't fit your narratives.

                        Your choice, choom.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                          If anybody is being dishonest, it's stoic, although it's also possible that he simply failed at reading comprehension. As noted in the article and in the source documents, Smith was inspired to start his targeting operation in response to a New York Times article about conservative organizations. Again, you would know all of this if simply stopped being willfully ignorant and actually read the article.
                          That's nice, doesn't change the fact that the added parenthetical by your dishonest source was added to something that said absolutely nothing of the sort in order to try to make it sound as if it said something it didn't.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post


                            [Oct 2017] In a legal settlement that still awaits a federal judge's approval, the IRS "expresses its sincere apology" for mistreating a conservative organization called Linchpins of Liberty — along with 40 other conservative groups — in their applications for tax-exempt status.

                            And in a second case, NorCal Tea Party Patriots and 427 other groups suing the IRS also reached a "substantial financial settlement" with the government.

                            [...]

                            The consent order says the IRS admits it wrongly used "heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays" and demanded unnecessary information as it reviewed applications for tax-exempt status. The order says, "For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology."

                            [...]

                            The controversy began in 2013 when an IRS official admitted the agency had been aggressively scrutinizing groups with names such as "Tea Party" and "Patriots." It later emerged that liberal groups had been targeted, too, although in smaller numbers.

                            https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/56030...rvative-groups

                            So there are the basic facts: conservative groups were targeted explicitly with a small number of liberal groups getting caught in the net, although we know from other sources that in instances where a liberal group was inadvertently targeted, the cases were quickly settled by the IRS.

                            But let's assume these facts are wrong, and that Jack Smith illegally targeted conservative and liberal groups equally. The question still must be asked: Is this really someone we want to head up a politically charged investigation?
                            Nope, not the facts. Those are just the groups that sued. The liberal groups didn't.

                            Jack Smith simply did his job, hun.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                              That's nice, doesn't change the fact that the added parenthetical by your dishonest source was added to something that said absolutely nothing of the sort in order to try to make it sound as if it said something it didn't.
                              In other words, you were taken in by stoic's quote mining. Not a good look, man. The parenthetical is perfectly in keeping with good journalistic practices since it is clearly supported by the facts as presented elsewhere in the report. Your ignorance on this point is inexcusable when all you have to do is click a link and read.

                              Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                              Nope, not the facts. Those are just the groups that sued. The liberal groups didn't.

                              Jack Smith simply did his job, hun.
                              Now you're just in denial. Even the Associated Press, hardly a conservative source, reports that the IRS admitted that conservative groups in particular were "aggressively scrutinized" and subjected to demands for "unnecessary information" and "inordinate delays". You claim that the smaller number of liberal groups that were inadvertently targeted were treated identically to the conservative groups, so why didn't they sue? Especially after they saw the conservative groups receiving an apology and a "substantial financial settlement" from the government? At that point, they would have had no reason not to sue since it would have been a slam dunk win based on precedent.

                              And yet no liberal organization filed a suit. Curious, isn't it?

                              But you still didn't answer the question: even if we assume that your "alternative facts" () are correct, why would we want Jack Smith, who spearheaded the illegal IRS targeting of political organizations, in charge of a Federal investigation?
                              Last edited by Mountain Man; 11-25-2022, 11:24 AM.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                                In other words, you were taken in by stoic's quote mining. Not a good look, man. The parenthetical is perfectly in keeping with good journalistic practices since it is clearly supported by the facts as presented elsewhere in the report. Your ignorance on this point is inexcusable when all you have to do is click a link and read.
                                no, in other words I was not taken in by your Breitbart's dishonest insertion of something not supported by the quotation made.

                                Now you're just in denial. Even the Associated Press, hardly a conservative source, reports that the IRS admitted that conservative groups in particular were "aggressively scrutinized" and subjected to demands for "unnecessary information" and "inordinate delays". You claim that the smaller number of liberal groups that were inadvertently targeted were treated identically to the conservative groups, so why didn't they sue? Especially after they saw the conservative groups receiving an apology and a "substantial financial settlement" from the government? At that point, they would have had no reason not to sue since it would have been a slam dunk win based on precedent.

                                And yet no liberal organization filed a suit. Curious, isn't it?

                                But you still didn't answer the question: even if we assume that your "alternative facts" () are correct, why would we want Jack Smith, who spearheaded the illegal IRS targeting of political organizations, in charge of a Federal investigation?
                                There is no evidence that it was a smaller number. Indeed, it appears the search terms covered an even wider variety of liberal groups than the terms used for conservative ones.

                                They didn't sue likely because they weren't whiney babies with political agendas like the conservative groups, and weren't interested in a weak apology. Not to mention the revelation came a good deal later after the conservative groups sued.

                                Sorry bud, Trump's own investigation showed both were targeted. Your hysteria does not change that.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                244 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                106 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                322 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X