Links? Tweets are often "wonderfully" ambiguous as to exactly which topics they refer.
Unsure on what this site's bias is, but they source all statements made and cover the different reasons given and inferred back then: FactCheck.Org - Why did Trump fire Comey?
relevant excerpt said:
They have a more updated article on Flynn specifically that provides a timeline too: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/michael-flynns-russia-timeline/
Edit: That timeline actually answers most/all of my questions. Thanks for getting there guys.
Last edited:
trump "Vladimir I can fix this!"
Putin "Oh? And how do you plan on doing that? "
trump "By firing Robert Mueller. "
Putin "Did you not hear a fucking word that I just said?! Mueller will come for you and you will do nothing because you can do nothing. Now get the fuck out of my sight."
Mueller subpoenaed trumps personal finances today.
Putin "Oh? And how do you plan on doing that? "
trump "By firing Robert Mueller. "
Putin "Did you not hear a fucking word that I just said?! Mueller will come for you and you will do nothing because you can do nothing. Now get the fuck out of my sight."
Mueller subpoenaed trumps personal finances today.
Apparently they got subpoenaed several weeks ago, it's just now we're finding out about it.
Oh, hey, now we have the "gloves are COMPLETELY off" situation.
Russia Banned from 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics
Russia Banned from 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics
Already posted in the political thread.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, I mean, it's not like Drumpf has any sway with the IOC.
He's the best at getting athletes out of tight situations!
So what's this Jerusalem embassy thing?
The US, like many other countries in the civilized world, have their embassies in Tel Aviv Yafo - which, even after the 1967 war and Israel's occupation of the West Bank of the Jordan, is technically seen as their national capital.
However, Israel considers Jerusalem their capital, despite its status as a divided city. They have long insisted that other countries move their embassies to Jerusalem, but most of the international community is loathe to do so, as it would aggravate Palestinians, Syrians, and most of the Muslim world who believe Israel's occupation of all of Jerusalem to be illegal.
Essentially, by saying "we're moving our embassy to Jerusalem," Trump is saying to Muslim nations, "We don't care what you think."
However, Israel considers Jerusalem their capital, despite its status as a divided city. They have long insisted that other countries move their embassies to Jerusalem, but most of the international community is loathe to do so, as it would aggravate Palestinians, Syrians, and most of the Muslim world who believe Israel's occupation of all of Jerusalem to be illegal.
Essentially, by saying "we're moving our embassy to Jerusalem," Trump is saying to Muslim nations, "We don't care what you think."
Thank you.
I don't see Juanita Broaddrick or Paula Jones there. Oh right, they complained about somebody POWERFUL and so were ridiculed and attacked because their perpetrator was (and is) powerful. They weren't believed, and thus didn't start a movement. And it took Judd around 20 years to be believed. No wonder her career cratered. I would 100% believe it was Harvey that did that. It's about 30 years after Broddrick was raped. I wonder if he'll ever at the least be ridiculed. Convicted would be better.He is going to melt. The fuck. Down.
Ranting aside, I do wish they went with a single person, but barring that (that ship sailed years ago), I'd say it's a good choice for the cover and title for this year. I just hope it actually results in both convictions, and permanent black-balling. Of the PERPETRATORS I mean. What will more likely IMO happen is the victims will get black-balled.
Probably not in the US. Most crimes have a statute of limitations of 6-10 years (depends on state). Only certain egregious crimes (first degree murder, and in some states particularly bad child sex crimes) have longer statutes of limitation or no statute of limitation.
However, the UK doesn't have statute of limitations on certain sex crimes. So there's a chance of criminal charges there, but similar to Polanski that may come down to a question of extradition on top of proving the crimes happened in the UK. As a relatively rich and powerful (connected) person who even today still has influence in the industry this is going to be difficult.
Hopefully all these accusers will file civil suits, and hopefully few will settle and instead drag him through court case after court case after court case. If they can at least draw down his accounts it would provide some small amount of punishment. If they can do so before he hits the criminal trials (and thus have several damning civil convictions under his belt, in addition to lower funds) then so much the better.
But that's really the best case scenario, and as in the case of many celebrity civil and criminal suits, chances are good he's not going to be hurt much by it.
And hollywood may publicly denounce and turn away from him, the reality is that he was successful, and made decisions that resulted in profit. They will still privately turn to him, and thus he will retain some influence in the industry. Meritocracy does have its place in that industry.
And that's assuming he doesn't publicly repent and go through the process of saying he's changed and deserves a second chance. If he is able to pacify his accusers through apology and renumeration, become a spokesperson for anti-harrasment movements (commercials, industry panels, etc), and do whatever else it takes to convince people he's a different person, this will all be water under the bridge in two years time.
Dude, he loses it every year. Every year. He's gon be mad.
Juanita Broaddrick's testimony is considered to be questionable because during the Paula Jones case, she gave a sworn affidavit that she had never had sexual contact of any kind with Bill Clinton. Testifying otherwise would mean she had perjured herself, so the Starr inquisition decided her case could not be used.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/affidavit122398.htm
2. In November of 1997, two private investigators retained by Paula Corbin Jones approached me at my residence. I declined to speak with them, but provided the name of my family attorney. I subsequently was served with a subpoena seeking the production of documents and purporting to require my testimony at a deposition in the civil action between Paula Corbin Jones and President William Jefferson Clinton (Civil Action No. LR-C-94-290). I have never met Ms. Jones, nor do I have any information regarding the allegations that she has advanced against President Clinton. In this regard, I have no knowledge or information regarding the events she has alleged occurred on May 8, 1991 at the Excelsior Hotel or, for that matter, any knowledge or information regarding any interaction between herself and Mr. Clinton.
3. I met President Clinton more than twenty years ago through family friends. Our introduction was not arranged or facilitated, in any way, by the Arkansas State Police. I have never been an Arkansas state employee or a federal employee. I have never discussed with Mr. Clinton the possibility of state or federal employment nor has he offered me any such position. I have had no further relations with him for the past (15) years.
4. During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.
5. I do not possess any information that could possibly be relevant to the allegations advanced by Paula Corbin Jones or which could lead to admissible evidence in her case. Specifically, I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton, any discussion offer or provision of state or federal employment or advancement in exchange for sexual conduct, or any use of state troopers to procure women for sex. Requiring my testimony at a deposition in this matter would cause unwarranted attorney's fees and costs, disruption to my life and constitute an invasion of my right to privacy. For these reasons, I have asked my attorney to advise Ms. Jones's counsel that there is no truth to the rumors they are pursuing and to provide her counsel with this sworn affidavit.
And we really dodged a bullet when we dismissed one of his many enablers from holding office in 2016.
It was news the first few times.
It's got more evidence than your side of the story does, broheem.
In this case, however, the democrats supported trump, so it's nothing at all like your hypothetical where I'm sure the republicans would have voted to repeal the ACA:
Which speaks quite well towards the democrats who voted against it, since these articles clearly don't meet the requirements for impeachment.
Those who wrote it and voted for it, however, are clearly doing so only for partisan reasons, rather than a strongly founded rationale.
Unless you think these articles are valid, in which case one can only assume they would rather have Trump than Pence.
I just meant in the sense that they did a vote that they knew wouldn't pass, just like the republicans voted for a full repeal of Obamacare when they knew it wouldn't really have a chance, but when they had the chance to repeal it and it would work if they voted for it, they couldn't do it.
