I didn't realize Jitterbug flip phones had the capacity to record videos,. Nevertheless, my girl doesn't hang out in Lynchburg's teeming red-light district, so you may want to have yourself checked out once the burning itch sets in.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Some excellent logic here from Justice Alito on why it there is no potential conflict of interest in going on a free fishing trip to Alaska with mega-rich conservative donors, then not recusing during cases involving these same people:
Also Scalia was in on some sweetheart, undisclosed trips bought and paid for by the Federalist Society it seems.
www.propublica.org
and
Also Scalia was in on some sweetheart, undisclosed trips bought and paid for by the Federalist Society it seems.
Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court
In the years after the undisclosed trip to Alaska, Republican megadonor Paul Singer’s hedge fund has repeatedly had business before the Supreme Court. Alito has never recused himself.
Oh man, this reads as massive sour grapes. LOL
news.yahoo.com
An Aggressive Supreme Court Reshapes the US as Its Standing Erodes
(Bloomberg) -- The Supreme Court, in the midst of a run of decisions that have stress-tested the core principles of US democracy, has rarely been so aggressive in using its powers — or been viewed with more skepticism by Americans.Most Read from BloombergNoises Detected in Search for Titanic Sub...
Some excellent logic here from Justice Alito on why it there is no potential conflict of interest in going on a free fishing trip to Alaska with mega-rich conservative donors, then not recusing during cases involving these same people:
and
Also Scalia was in on some sweetheart, undisclosed trips bought and paid for by the Federalist Society it seems.
Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court
In the years after the undisclosed trip to Alaska, Republican megadonor Paul Singer’s hedge fund has repeatedly had business before the Supreme Court. Alito has never recused himself.
" Alito said that when Singer’s companies came before the court, the justice was unaware of the billionaire’s connection to the cases. He said he recalled speaking to Singer on “no more than a handful of occasions,” and they never discussed Singer’s business or issues before the court.
Alito said that he was invited to fly on Singer’s plane shortly before the trip and that the seat “would have otherwise been vacant.” He defended his failure to report the trip to the public, writing that justices “commonly interpreted” the disclosure requirements to not include “accommodations and transportation for social events.”
In a statement, a spokesperson for Singer told ProPublica that Singer didn’t organize the trip and that he wasn’t aware Alito would be attending when he accepted the invitation. Singer “never discussed his business interests” with the justice, the spokesperson said, adding that at the time of trip, neither Singer nor his companies had “any pending matters before the Supreme Court, nor could Mr. Singer have anticipated in 2008 that a subsequent matter would arise that would merit Supreme Court review.” "
Durham testifies that the FBI ignored Hillary Clinton plan to link Trump to Russia
Special Counsel John Durham testified Wednesday that the CIA in 2016 received intelligence that suggested Hillary Clinton had approved a plan to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia.
how could this be so generally apparent to many of us and so completely deniable by others? The fact is that our system has devolved into my side against your side, no critical thinking (other than mine and some others of course) employed. Wait did I say 'critical thinking'?. I should have said just plain awareness.
Durham testifies that the FBI ignored Hillary Clinton plan to link Trump to Russia
Special Counsel John Durham testified Wednesday that the CIA in 2016 received intelligence that suggested Hillary Clinton had approved a plan to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia.www.foxnews.com
What pisses me off no end is that Hillary will remain the female teflon don.
You have been bitterly complaining for more than 3 1/2 years over Donald Trump's landslide defeat in 2020 and the disappointing and so-called "red wave" that turned out to be a mere ripple in 2022, and you're calling a Bloomberg News article sour grapes?Oh man, this reads as massive sour grapes. LOL
An Aggressive Supreme Court Reshapes the US as Its Standing Erodes
(Bloomberg) -- The Supreme Court, in the midst of a run of decisions that have stress-tested the core principles of US democracy, has rarely been so aggressive in using its powers — or been viewed with more skepticism by Americans.Most Read from BloombergNoises Detected in Search for Titanic Sub...
You're the king of sour grapes.
Last edited:
Remember the good ol' days when conservatism in America equated with ethical principles?Some excellent logic here from Justice Alito on why it there is no potential conflict of interest in going on a free fishing trip to Alaska with mega-rich conservative donors, then not recusing during cases involving these same people:
and
Also Scalia was in on some sweetheart, undisclosed trips bought and paid for by the Federalist Society it seems.
Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court
In the years after the undisclosed trip to Alaska, Republican megadonor Paul Singer’s hedge fund has repeatedly had business before the Supreme Court. Alito has never recused himself.
She's old and will die soon. As a loser who never won despite her cheating. I hope her demise is extra painful. If there is a God, it will be.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. So bitter and tormented. It must really suck when your life sucks. No wonder your wife left you.
I told you. My wife and I have patched things up after I let some cheap whore who I believe is your new wife, fellate me. After the beating I gave you yesterday off your lame wisecrack, I'm surprised you would tempt me to discuss the d*ck sucking your bitch gave me. If there's one thing I can say about you, you're a glutton for punishment. And I mean that differently than when I say it to your wife.
As you know, I find my outlook similar to yours much of the time. That being said, more than any other time I can recall, I share your sentiment here. The two-faced phony bitch would sell us down the river in a heartbeat for the sake of even a little personal gain. Only the truly oblivious don't see that.
Anyone who doubts that her character is rotten, should see the video of her interview as a young lawyer bragging about getting the rapist of a young girl off scott free. Hell, here's a video about it.
Adam Schiff censured by House for 'false' allegations on Trump-Russia collusion
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to censure Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for pushing claims that former President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign colluded with Russia.
Alt right supreme court is at it again.
Supreme Court declines appeal from Christian school fighting transgender housing
At issue was a 2021 Biden administration memo that interpreted a federal anti-discrimination housing law as protecting transgender Americans.
www.usatoday.com
I'm sure Blaze is cueing up a bunch of posts he's been getting fed about all these crazy rulings by the SCt due to their compromised interests, activism, and ultra conservative agenda. Oh, wait . . . . . .Alt right supreme court is at it again.
Supreme Court declines appeal from Christian school fighting transgender housing
At issue was a 2021 Biden administration memo that interpreted a federal anti-discrimination housing law as protecting transgender Americans.www.usatoday.com
You're in the minority. Most americans aren't happy with many of the recent rulings from scotus regarding abortion, guns, sep of church & state, epa.
Maybe I am, but you and "Most americans" apparently refuse to acknowledge or understand this very simple concept: IT's NOT AN OPINION POLL.
The Court's sole and only job is to interpret the LAW. That begins with the Constitution, then statutes, and then common law. That's it. The job is not a popularity contest. THAT concept is the job of the legislature. Come on, you took civics at some point in your life. If the populace doesn't like something, you have the legislature pass a new law. If they can't because it is prohibited by the Constitution, then there is the amendment process. You and "Most americans" don't like this because you only lived in a historical era where the court got stacked with liberal activist judges: If we can't pass a law (because it isn't the majority of Americans who support it) or we can't pass a Constitutional amendment (because it isn't the majority of Americans who support it), we'll just turn to a bunch of judges to make it up from the bench!!! Sadly, for your whims of which way the wind is blowing, that's not how the system is designed.
Regarding your belief and claims about recent rulings, I'll limit it to one - abortion. If it's so simple and such a majority that most Americans are all about the judicially created "right" to an abortion, that has now been stricken as a fiction in the Constitution, simply pass your law or amendment. Come on, it shouldn't be that hard since most agree with you and not the Court.
In the meantime, I'll sit back and watch your hypocrisy continue to be laid bare as the Court actually does its job and demonstrates that your ilk's demagoguery of their leanings is a political fantasy.
many of the recent rulings? There's a surprise. Most Americans aren't happy about a lot of things. Most Americans think Biden is an idiot, but he's still president. Find me even one that's happy about everything. Not sure how you determine his minority status based on your keen observation that Americans don't like everything about our government.
I am sure however that you deflected from the point being made, which is that these justices are not ruling on some rigid conservative scheme but are rather trying to follow the law in their rulings. Besides, I'm not sure when the SCOTUS started conducting surveys to see what Americans are and are not happy about before ruling on contentious areas of the law. No wait, now I remember...it was when liberal justices had the majority.
What I was expecting was another fluffed up attack on the integrity of some conservative justice. I am disappoint, I enjoy when you post them. It's like shooting wounded ducks in a barrel of fish.
Most Americans were fine with the court until the dems started trying to present them as political figures.
and painting adherence to Constitutional principle as some sort of evil conservative conspiracy.
Regarding your belief and claims about recent rulings, I'll limit it to one - abortion. If it's so simple and such a majority that most Americans are all about the judicially created "right" to an abortion, that has now been stricken as a fiction in the Constitution, simply pass your law or amendment. Come on, it shouldn't be that hard since most agree with you and not the Court.
The court has no more business making abortion legal as it does making it illegal.
The court has no more business making abortion legal as it does making it illegal.
Which is exactly what they said and then turned it over to the states to allow or not allow it.
Why are all the libs not discussing Durham and his slaying of democrats?
www.foxnews.com
The stunning revelation in Durham hearing should chill us to the core
Special Counsel John Durham recently appeared before congress to answer questions about his bombshell report.
I watched a good bit of this on C-span. Durham is a rock and as straight a shooter as you'll find. On the other hand...Why are all the libs not discussing Durham and his slaying of democrats?
The stunning revelation in Durham hearing should chill us to the core
Special Counsel John Durham recently appeared before congress to answer questions about his bombshell report.
" Democrats on the committee who have no curiosity whatsoever about the Durham report, even though the FBI itself admits wrongdoing and says it has made corrections, spent the morning berating and insulting the witness. "
Watch the video from the link and you'll get an inkling of how atrocious the dems really are and how little they care that the FBI FUBAR'ed. All they care about is that it came to light. Almost to a member, they only tried to aggressively and sometimes viciously shoot holes in Durham's report and testimony, and to cast aspersions on all things not liberal.
They kept asking questions about things outside the scope of Durham's report and appearance before Congress because they didn't have a leg to stand on otherwise. Reminds me a little of dealing with a few here..
Durham could not be ruffled, and his performance made me proud to be an American. Adam Schiff especially, on the other hand, is pure excrement....not that that should be news to anyone..
ever notice that when dems bitch about SCOTUS rulings, they never bring up how a ruling may or may not have been properly made along legal lines but rather how it makes them feel or whether it gives them what they want things to be like? They are like children. Whiny, self-centered children that you can't reason with.
Slaying?Why are all the libs not discussing Durham and his slaying of democrats?
The stunning revelation in Durham hearing should chill us to the core
Special Counsel John Durham recently appeared before congress to answer questions about his bombshell report.
If anyone got slayed it was Durham. Gaetz was practically called him and Barr part of the deep state.
Then this occurred
From what I could see it looked like Dems were trying to show that Durham was myopic, that he ignored the Mueller report and other things which made the Mueller investigation warranted.
Swalwell asked Durham about how Trump “tried and concealed from the public a real-estate deal he was seeking in Moscow.”
Durham replied, “I don’t know anything about that.”
Schiff asked Durham if the Russians released stolen information through cutouts.
Durham replied, “I’m not sure.” :
Schiff asked Durham if he knew that, hours after Trump publicly asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails and release them, Russian hackers made an attempt to hack Clinton emails.
Durham replied, “If that happened, I’m not aware of that.”
Schiff asked Durham if he was aware that Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, passed on polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence agent, at the time Russia was conducting both a social-media campaign and the release of stolen documents to help Trump.
Durham replied, “You may be getting beyond the depth of my knowledge.”
And here he says Clinton wasn't discussed, but per Mueller's findings she was:
Swalwell asked Durham about how Trump “tried and concealed from the public a real-estate deal he was seeking in Moscow.”
Durham replied, “I don’t know anything about that.”
Schiff asked Durham if the Russians released stolen information through cutouts.
Durham replied, “I’m not sure.” :
Schiff asked Durham if he knew that, hours after Trump publicly asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails and release them, Russian hackers made an attempt to hack Clinton emails.
Durham replied, “If that happened, I’m not aware of that.”
Schiff asked Durham if he was aware that Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, passed on polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence agent, at the time Russia was conducting both a social-media campaign and the release of stolen documents to help Trump.
Durham replied, “You may be getting beyond the depth of my knowledge.”
And here he says Clinton wasn't discussed, but per Mueller's findings she was:
Lol. This Durham report was built up to be this heavenly revelation. The Mueller report, even the Senate Gop report highlighted problems related to relations tween Trump campaign and Russia. This was this Dems opportunity to say "sure FBI was biased analyzing the splatter, but look at the amazing amount of blood on the wall for fvck sakes".
what unadulterated crapola. The revelations of the Durham report point to the rotteness at the core of the apple, and the dems are behind the rot.
Your analogy is ridiculous. The black and white of it is that the entire ordeal was politically motivated and then enabled by the FBI. The preoccupation with it and the distraction it caused was massive. It affected the lives of Americans...it affected America...negatively, over criminal political gamesmanship in trying to retain/gain power. The blood on the wall is ours and the dems splattered it. The real crime here is that they won't do any time.
I wish you weren't so disingenuous. It's just creepy to see a grown man try to deny the simple, plain truth that we all can see. The Mueller report disclosed that what the dems kept screeching was just character assassination against an opponent. 'The Mueller report, even the Senate Gop report highlighted problems OF NO REAL SIGNIFICANCE', and certainly nothing to suggest collusion with Russia in a campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, Hillary DID employ the services of a foreign agent in order to form a phony basis for bringing down Donald trump.
It's just incredible that ANYbody would try to deny or even minimize the treason that this represents.
More actual cases of election fraud - as usual they're republicans.
coloradosun.com
Colorado prosecutors charge 6 signature gatherers for unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate
The six are accused of submitting false signatures and signatures of dead voters for a 7th Congressional District candidate.
coloradosun.com
Mueller= 37 indictments, 10 guilty or convictions. Remind me again what Durham's score was other than Adam Schiff getting censured (name-called) by house member's sucking on Trump's teat?
"I don't think this is unique in your experience". LMAO.
Schiff is simply characterizing facts as pointing to an unfounded conclusion. That's what the scummy dems do.
for example
"Mueller said the Trump campaign made efforts to “find the deleted Clinton emails.” Trump is said to have privately asked would-be national security advisor Michael Flynn, since convicted following inquiries by the Special Counsel’s office, to reach out to associates to obtain the emails. One of those associates was Peter Smith, who died by suicide in May 2017, who claimed to be in contact with Russian hackers — claims which Mueller said were not true.
Does that implicate the Trump campaign in an illegal act? Likely not.
“Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy,” according to Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst. “The special counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.” "
The basis for claiming that Trump was responsible for initiating the hack of dem and Clinton servers was an offhand, public remark he made in which he expressed hope that Hillary's deleted e-mails would be located. Yeah that there is some serious collusion talk. LMAO
this is the lie you keep relying on. 37 indictments do NOT point to Trump guilt or an indication of what the investigation was supposed to find. It's so mindless of you that you think this is some contest scored by number of indictments. Team A plays team B a game of basketball. Team A has more rebounds, more assists, more power dunks, more fans in the stands, more concessions sold....but loses to team B because the final score is what matters.
Team A did not find Trump guilty of collusion. Team B did find that the investigation was a crock to begin with. Team B wins.
Similar threads
