Xtra News Community 2
January 17, 2018, 10:11:35 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
 51 
 on: January 11, 2018, 04:09:13 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Im2Sexy4MyPants
come on you fuckhead retard everyone knows saying people are mental is right out of the communist playbook

communist countries have a long record of locking up anyone who does not agree with their politics in state run hellhole mental institutions

i would rather die than become a communist retard because they are weak brained idiots and screwed in the head

 

 52 
 on: January 11, 2018, 02:30:38 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The Washington Post....

Trump has already taken the test on whether he is stupid and insane

The result was forecast…

By TOM TOLES | 12:45PM EST — Tuesday, January 09, 2018



PRESIDENT TRUMP is now insisting he's sane. He has all but said that he's the only one who's sane — it's everybody else who's crazy!

Admittedly, this is a tough spot he's in, having to convince people that you are sane, especially when you're actually not. Trump is about to undergo a health exam because the citizens would like to know if their president is fit to serve. Conveniently for Trump, the exam will not include a check of his mental or emotional state.

This leaves the rest of the nation to sort through the rumors that his staff thinks he’s an idiot of the blithering variety, and to wonder whether when tying his shoes he is verbally confused as to whether the bunny “runs around the tree” or “is shot and thrown in the pot.”

But we don't need to have all the details as to whether he spends his days shouting at the presidents in the portrait gallery or repeating 12 times that he wants a Diet Coke and drinking them all when he wanted only one. We have all the evidence we need that he is stupid. And that he is crazy.

Stupid: It is fair to say that in the 21st century, a baseline measure of intelligence is the ability to understand how science works, acquire a rough understanding of relevant research and base your decision-making with the evidence in mind. Trump has so spectacularly failed in even the most rudimentary understanding of climate research that it is appalling and incomprehensible to a literally planetary degree. While there are plenty of self-interested parties who pretend that the science is unsettled, Trump genuinely appears to be confounded by what is now a straightforward case for the carbon warming connection.

Insane: Whatever the excuse for his stupidity, laziness or cynicism about the science, his actual policy of subverting efforts to slow and stop the ongoing catastrophe of climate change is nothing short of active madness, plain and simple. His alternative of relentlessly trying to reverse progress already made by trying to get even more coal burned on Planet Blast Furnace while simultaneously filling our breathing air with disease-causing particulates is nothing less than dementia of a high-crimes-and-misdemeanors magnitude.

Given the seen and forecast consequences, we don’t need one CO² molecule more of evidence than this.


__________________________________________________________________________

• Tom Toles is the editorial cartoonist for The Washington Post and writes the Tom Toles blog. See all of his cartoons HERE.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/01/09/trump-has-already-taken-the-test-on-whether-he-is-stupid-and-insane

 53 
 on: January 11, 2018, 01:17:30 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

Jeff Sessions' attack on the California way

If he prosecutes growers he will make weed more dangerous.

By GUSTAVO ARELLANO | Wednesday, January 10, 2018

The reversal of a U.S. policy allowing leeway for state-sanctioned sales of marijuana could push banks to rethink their plans. Above, a line at MedMen dispensary in West Hollywood. — Photograph: Christina House/Los Angeles Times.
The reversal of a U.S. policy allowing leeway for state-sanctioned sales of marijuana could push banks to rethink their plans.
Above, a line at MedMen dispensary in West Hollywood. — Photograph: Christina House/Los Angeles Times.


KEYBOARD CONFESSIONAL: I've never smoked marijuana in my life. I don't care for kush. I hate its smell. Edibles scare me. I can't tell the difference between THC and TBS. The one time pals offered me a joint, I declined and drank Cactus Cooler instead.

But I support the right for any adult to light up. I voted to legalize marijuana in California, as the majority of residents did, because the drug war is a disaster that destroys too many lives and wastes billions of dollars. Legalizing is great for our image as Progressive Paradise, and my only regret is that we let Colorado do it first. You know what Colorado also beat us on? Craft beer. Let us never lose again to a state with the weirdest airport in the world.

Recreational dispensaries finally opened last week, which provoked the wrath of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “Good people don't smoke marijuana,” he once said. I wish he'd repeat that in front of my butcher friend, who survived Stage 4 colon cancer and regained his appetite with the help of some fat blunts.

America's top lawman rescinded an Obama-era pledge that feds wouldn't crack down on states that allow marijuana, whether for pleasure or for pain. Such respect for states' rights “undermines the rule of [federal] law,” according to Sessions — funny, because he's from Alabama, which last year wanted to bar transgender folks from using the bathroom of their choice despite federal protections.

Sessions' memo is a targeted attack on the California way.

Make no mistake: He has it in for us, and not just because our attorney general, Xavier Becerra, keeps smacking the Trump administration with lawsuits as if it were a piñata. Sessions could've issued his downer-doobie edict last summer, when Nevada began the sale of recreational marijuana. He could've piggybacked on Maine Governor Paul LePage's veto this fall of a bill that would've allowed weed sales. (LePage is also a toke teetotaler; he once wrote, “The dangers of legalizing marijuana and normalizing its use in our society cannot be understated.”)

No, Sessions waited until 2018, when the eyes of the nation had turned to our Green Rush. He waited to humiliate us, to try and scare us into submission.

You can't put the nugget back in the stash, Brother Beauregard. The United States is irrecoverably going ganja. And in California, we're ready to provide a map for the future, one the rest of the country can use to roll out the reefer economy the right way.

We've screwed up before. Proposition 215 in 1996 made us the first state in the country to allow medicinal marijuana. Other states followed, of course. But let's be honest: While we were pioneers, the actual execution wasn't pretty. Getting a doctor's note for a card became easier than finding a good wave in Santa Cruz and made a mockery of Proposition 215's original intent. The black market exploded as a result, and that shadiness haunts the industry from the Emerald Triangle to grow houses in suburbia.

Proposition 64 in 2016 showed that California had learned its lesson. We want weed regulated like alcohol; that helps root out a lot of the unsavory and allows further respectability to seep into the business. Legal Lady Jane also offers relief for city budgets: in San Diego alone, the Union-Tribune reported, tax revenue would start at “$5.5 million per year initially, with steady increases up to $13.7 million … in June 2023.”

Sessions could've waited to see how California went forward. He could've even directed the Department of Justice to assist us on enforcement. Such a partnership could've helped thaw the Cold War we have with Trump.

Instead, Sessions may start prosecuting users, sellers and growers, which will only push marijuana even more underground and make it more dangerous. Don't take it from me. Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican-Costa Mesa), who long ago blocked me on Twitter because I like to mock his xenophobia, blasted Sessions in a statement for delivering an “extravagant holiday gift to the drug cartels.”

If Rohrabacher and I can agree on something, then all of us can unite on this. We squabble about everything here in California; I still maintain the only thing that brings us together is Huell Howser reruns. But a threat against our new weed trade and those who use it is another issue we can all rally around.

There's no one way to fight Sessions. Resist whatever the feds may bring; take revenge on politicians who support him come November; support your friendly neighborhood dispensary.

As for me? Maybe, just maybe, in defiance of any federal overreach, I'll buy and use a cannabis product for the first time in my life. I don't even smoke tobacco, so I'm thinking something like chocolate peanut butter cups. Or maybe gummies. They've always seemed psychedelic and cool to me. Anyone got any recommendations?


__________________________________________________________________________

• Gustavo Arellano is the former publisher and editor of Orange County's alternative weekly OC Weekly, and the author of the column ¡Ask a Mexican!, which is syndicated nationally.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=a1a3458f-c654-4ade-8565-9219c39413d2

 54 
 on: January 11, 2018, 01:17:20 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

Florida (only) exempt from offshore plan

California and New York Democrats accuse White House of partisan favoritism.

By GRAY ROHRER and MATT PEARCE | Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, right, holds a news conference in Tallahassee, Florida, with Republican Governor Rick Scott to announce that the offshore oil drilling plan unveiled last week won't include Florida. — Photograph: Scott Keeler/Tampa Bay Times.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, right, holds a news conference in Tallahassee, Florida, with Republican Governor Rick Scott to announce
that the offshore oil drilling plan unveiled last week won't include Florida. — Photograph: Scott Keeler/Tampa Bay Times.


TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA — Democratic officials in California and New York accused the Trump administration of unfair partisan treatment on Tuesday after Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke exempted Florida from expanded offshore drilling — under pressure from the state's Republican governor — without offering similar exemptions to other coastal states.

The administration's move comes after a bipartisan backlash from politicians on both coasts after it announced plans last week to consider allowing new leases off most of the U.S. coastline to explore offshore oil and natural gas reserves.

“We are not drilling off the coast of Florida,” Zinke said at a hastily called news conference at the Tallahassee airport after meeting with Republican Florida Governor Rick Scott, who opposed the new drilling.

“President Trump has directed me to rebuild our offshore oil and gas program in a manner that supports our national energy policy and also takes into consideration the local and state voice,” Zinke said in a statement. “I support the governor's position that Florida is unique and its coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver.”

But Zinke's announcement instantly drew criticism from Democratic officials who also oppose drilling off their states' coasts, saying they oppose drilling for the same reasons Florida's governor does.

“California is also ‘unique’ & our ‘coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver’,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said on Twitter. “Our ‘local and state voice’ is firmly opposed to any and all offshore drilling. If that's your standard, we, too, should be removed from your list. Immediately.”

“Secretary Zinke must also abandon his efforts to drill along California's beautiful coastline,” Senator Kamala Harris (Democrat-California) tweeted. “Protection of our ocean shouldn't depend on the D, R, or I after the governor's name.”

In New York, Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo also tweeted a protest. “New York doesn't want drilling off our coast either,” he said. “Where do we sign up for a waiver @SecretaryZinke?”

Florida's elected officials from both parties, including Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, whom Scott is expected to challenge this year, and GOP Senator Marco Rubio, had also expressed opposition to the offshore drilling plan.

Late on Tuesday, Nelson denounced Zinke's announcement as a “political stunt orchestrated by the Trump administration to help Rick Scott.”

“Suddenly Secretary Zinke announces plans to drill off Florida's coast and four days later agrees to ‘take Florida off the table?’ I don't believe it,” Nelson said in a statement.

Under the Trump administration's original plan released for comment last week, the federal government would offer 47 leases in U.S. waters on the outer continental shelf, including two each off the Northern, Central and Southern California coasts, and one off Washington and Oregon.

There already are 23 oil platforms in federal waters off California and four in state waters — near Santa Barbara County, Huntington Beach and Seal Beach. There are also four artificial islands used as drilling platforms off Long Beach and one off Rincon Beach in Ventura County.

But images of oil-drenched seabirds and fouled beaches during the massive 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill soured the state on offshore oil development. There have been no new federal leases off California since 1984.

Oil drilling has likewise been a sensitive issue in Florida, with its miles of coastline, especially since the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010, which ravaged Louisiana's coast and left gooey tarballs on Florida Panhandle beaches.

Then-Governor Charlie Crist, a Democrat who is now a congressman, called a special session to ban oil drilling, but Florida lawmakers balked at the proposal.

As a candidate in 2010, Scott supported oil and gas drilling off Florida's shores as a way to reduce oil dependency and gas prices.

Despite the partial rollback of the plan, Zinke said the administration was still dedicated to aggressively seeking energy resources throughout the country.

“I don't want your kids ever to fight on foreign shores for a resource we have here,” he said. “But there's places where resources are sensitive, and there's places where we're not going to go forward with [drilling for oil], and one of them is off the coast of Florida.”

Scott was not the only Florida Republican criticizing the proposal last week, with U.S. Representative Vern Buchanan calling it “reckless, misguided and potentially catastrophic to Florida.”

The Florida Petroleum Council hailed the administration’s move as a way to benefit state consumers by potentially creating jobs and additional government revenue while strengthening national security.

“Allowing us to explore our offshore energy will boost our state economy and spur investment — all while safely co-existing with our agriculture, tourism and fishing industries as well as U.S. military operations,” Executive Director David Mica said in a statement.


__________________________________________________________________________

News Service of Florida contributed to this report.

• Gray Rohrer is a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel.

• Matt Pearce is a national reporter for the Los Angeles Times and frequently writes about violence, disasters, social movements and civil liberties. A University of Missouri graduate, he has covered news in the Midwest for a number of publications and previously wrote about technology, culture and the Middle East as a featured writer for the New Inquiry. He hails from Kansas City, Missouri.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=38fa494b-d788-419e-9e51-37f098d2abe6

 55 
 on: January 10, 2018, 11:24:08 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The Washington Post....

President Trump has made more than 2,000
false or misleading claims over 355 days


With just 10 days left in his first year as president, Trump
breaks a barrier we thought was beyond his reach.


By GLENN KESSLER and MEG KELLY | 3:00AM EST — Wednesday, January 10, 2018

President Donald J. Trump with Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (Democrat-Illinois), left, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Democrat-Maryland), right, during a meeting at the White House on Tuesday. — Photograph: Shawn Thew/European Pressphoto Agency/Agencia-EFE/Rex/Shutterstock.
President Donald J. Trump President Donald J. Trump with Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (Democrat-Illinois), left,
and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Democrat-Maryland), right, during a meeting at the White House on Tuesday.
 — Photograph: Shawn Thew/European Pressphoto Agency/Agencia-EFE/Rex/Shutterstock.


PRESIDENT TRUMP has broken 2,000.

With just 10 days before he finishes his first year as president, Trump has made 2,001 false or misleading claims in 355 days, according to our database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president. That's an average of more than 5.6 claims a day.

When we started this project, originally aimed at the president's first 100 days, he averaged 4.9 claims a day. At that pace, it appeared unlikely the president would break 2,000 in a year. But the longer the president has been in the job, the more frequently he touts an assortment of exaggerated, dubious or false claims. (Our full interactive graphic can be found here.)

As regular readers know, the president has a tendency to repeat himself — often. There are now nearly 70 claims that he has repeated three or more times. Indeed, he crossed the 2,000 threshold during his one-hour discussion on January 9th with lawmakers about immigration, tossing out some of his old favorites about the subject:


  • “We can build the wall in one year and we can build it for much less money than what they're talking about.”

  • In the diversity visa lottery, “what's in their hand are the worst of the worst but they put people in that they don't want into a lottery and the United States takes those people.”

  • “We have tremendous numbers of people and drugs pouring into our country. So in order to secure [the border] we need a wall.”

In fact:


  • Individuals apply for the visa system, and must have at least a high school diploma or work in specific industries to be eligible for the program. As the term “lottery” implies, applicants are selected via a randomized computer drawing. The selected applicants undergo a background check before entering the country, and some applicants undergo an additional in-depth review if they are considered a security risk.


Trump's claim about drug smuggling and the wall has been repeated 17 times, even though we awarded him Four Pinocchios. In just two months, he's falsely described the diversity lottery 12 times. And of course building the wall was a signature issue from the beginning of his presidential campaign, when he consistently low balled the cost.

We currently have a tie for Trump's most repeated claims, both made 61 times. Both of these claims date from the start of Trump's presidency and to a large extent have faded as talking points.

One of these claims was some variation of the statement that the Affordable Care Act is dying and “essentially dead”. The Congressional Budget Office has said that the Obamacare exchanges, despite well-documented issues, are not imploding and are expected to remain stable for the foreseeable future. Indeed, healthy enrollment for the coming year has surprised health-care experts. Trump used to say this a lot, but he's quieted down since his efforts to repeal the law flopped.

Trump also repeatedly takes credit for events or business decisions that happened before he took the oath of office — or had even been elected. Sixty-one times, he has touted that he secured business investments and job announcements that had been previously announced and could easily be found with a Google search.

With the successful push in Congress to pass a tax plan, two of Trump's favorite talking points about taxes — that the tax plan will be the biggest tax cut in U.S. history and that the United States is one of the highest-taxed nations — have rapidly moved up the list.

Trump repeated the falsehood about having the biggest tax cut 55 times, even though Treasury Department data shows it would rank eighth. And 59 times Trump has claimed that the United States pays the highest corporate taxes (26 times) or that it is one of the highest-taxed nations (33 times). The latter is false; the former is misleading, as the effective U.S. corporate tax rate (what companies end up paying after deductions and benefits) ends up being lower than the statutory tax rate.

We also track the president's flip-flops on our list, as they are so glaring. He spent the 2016 campaign telling supporters that the unemployment rate was really 42 percent and the official statistics were phony; now, on 47 occasions he has hailed the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years. It was already very low when he was elected — 4.6 percent, the lowest in a decade — so his failure to acknowledge that is misleading.

An astonishing 91 times, Trump has celebrated a rise in the stock market — even though in the campaign he repeatedly said it was a “bubble” that was ready to crash as soon as the Federal Reserve started raising interest rates. Well, the Fed has raised rates four times since the election — and yet the stock market has not plunged as Trump predicted. It has continued a rise in stock prices that began under President Barack Obama in 2009. Again, Trump has never explained his shift in position on the stock market, making his consistent cheerleading misleading.

Moreover, the U.S. stock market rise in 2017 was not unique and mirrored a global rise in equities. When looking at the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, it's clear U.S. stocks haven't rallied as robustly as their foreign equivalents. The percentage gain in the S&P 500 during Obama's first year still tops Trump's numbers — though any president bragging about stock market performance soon finds out it's a fool's game.

(About our rating scale)


__________________________________________________________________________

Glenn Kessler has reported on domestic and foreign policy for more than three decades at The Washington Post. He would like your help in keeping an eye on public figures. Send him statements to fact check by tweeting at him, or sending him a message on Facebook.

• Meg Kelly produces video for the Fact Checker at The Washington Post.

__________________________________________________________________________

Related to this topic:

 • VIDEO: President Trump's top five false or misleading claims

 • Keep tabs on Trump's promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

 • Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/10/president-trump-has-made-more-than-2000-false-or-misleading-claims-over-355-days

 56 
 on: January 10, 2018, 06:55:06 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

…that he doesn't know the words to the national anthem of the country he is president of.

Watch Trump mumble his way through The Star Spangled Banner.

Watch his lips……the stupid dumbfuck hastn't got a clue what the words are…



VIDEO: Trump sings the national anthem


Trump revives criticism of national anthem protests, but critics wonder: Does he know the song?

 57 
 on: January 10, 2018, 06:47:32 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The Washington Post....

Trump on the stand: The greatest political and legal peril he's ever faced

A defense lawyer's nightmare: Trump under oath.

By JENNIFER RUBIN | 10:15AM EST — Tuesday, January 09, 2018

President Donald J. Trump attempts to sing The Star Spangled Banner in Atlanta, Georgia. — Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters.
President Donald J. Trump attempts to sing The Star Spangled Banner in Atlanta, Georgia on Monday. — Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters.

The Washington Post reports:

Quote
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has told President Trump's legal team that his office is likely to seek an interview with the president, triggering a discussion among his attorneys about how to avoid a sit-down encounter or set limits on such a session, according to two people familiar with the talks.

Mueller raised the issue of interviewing Trump during a late-December meeting with the president's lawyers John Dowd and Jay Sekulow. Mueller deputy James Quarles, who oversees the White House portion of the special counsel investigation, also attended.

The special counsel's team could interview Trump soon on some limited portion of questions — possibly within the next several weeks, according to a person close to the president, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations.

The request reveals two disagreeable aspects of the Russia investigation. First, the investigation, Trump's lawyers must certainly have divined, is very much about Trump. This is not about whether “anyone” on the campaign colluded/conspired with the Russians but about whether he did or was aware of such action, and, more seriously for Trump, whether he has committed obstruction of justice or other criminal or impeachable acts in attempting to thwart the investigation. Second, while Trump once boasted that he'd be willing to testify under oath, his lawyers would be committing gross malpractice to let him do so.

Without a skilled prosecutor to press him, Trump admitted in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt that he had Russia in mind when he fired FBI Director James B. Comey. Imagine how things could go when Mueller queries him with the benefit of evidence acquired from document requests (e.g., the original draft of the memo firing Comey) and testimony taken under oath from others. The potential for Trump — who has never appeared to really understand that there is anything wrong with ordering the Justice Department to lay off a former aide or drop an investigation and who seems to assume the attorney general's job is to protect him — to implicate himself is great. (Well, of course I told Comey to lay off Mike Flynn!) No matter how prepared he is, Trump's impulsiveness and conviction he is his own best defender may lead him down perilous paths. He may not only contradict himself but multiple other, credible witnesses, as well as documentary evidence. It's a minefield even for the most intelligent and disciplined witness.

“The risk is that Trump would either incriminate himself, commit perjury, or lie — unless he truly has committed no offense and has nothing to fear from telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” constitutional lawyer Laurence H. Tribe tells me. “I regard that ‘unless’ as extremely implausible.” He adds, “That said, I wouldn't have him plead the Fifth. That option isn't realistically available to a sitting president, who simply can't afford the steep political price that taking the Fifth would inevitably exact.”

Legally, the president is entitled to plead the Fifth Amendment even if he maintains he cannot be indicted in office. The relevant Office of Legal Counsel opinion makes clear: “Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment…. The immunity from indictment and criminal prosecution for a sitting President would generally result in the delay, but not the forbearance, of any criminal trial.”

Fordham Law School professor Jed Shugerman reasons, “Thus, he still has the privilege against self-incrimination for that later criminal liability.” Nevertheless, the hullabaloo and the implication of guilt, fairly or not, would likely be politically lethal. Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general, agrees that while Trump's Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination apply since “any testimony he gives now could be used to incriminate him down the line,” the political consequences would be debilitating. Katyal predicts that, “should he go down that road, it would look Nixonian and catalyze his downfall.”

Knowing all this, it is highly unlikely the special prosecutor would “settle” for a written statement crafted by Trump's attorneys. He's going to press to get Trump talking under oath about everything from his drafting on Air Force One of the inaccurate statement explaining the Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and Russian officials to Trump's financial dealmaking with Russia. If Trump refuses to testify without invoking the Fifth, Mueller would have the option to subpoena him to testify in front of the grand jury, where his lawyer would not be present. If Trump does invoke the Fifth, his presidency would be at risk.

For all of Trump's boasting that he's done everything right (100 percent!) and his lawyer's ludicrous assertions that a president cannot commit obstruction of justice, the prospect for Trump to be interviewed under oath presents the greatest risk to his presidency yet. Look for a lot of political maneuvering, excuse-making and spin. In the end, however, Mueller has the power to compel Trump to testify; Trump might have a theoretical legal right to refuse, but as a practical matter, he in all likelihood will have to testify — and therefore put himself in grave legal and political peril.


• Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Washington Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.

__________________________________________________________________________

Related to this topic:

 • VIDEO: Opinion | Trump can fire Mueller, but that won't get rid of the Russia investigation

 • VIDEO: What the special counsel's team will want to ask Trump

 • How Mueller's potential questioning of Trump is likely to play out

 • Why are Trump's lawyers nervous? Because Mueller wants to interview Trump about obstruction.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/09/trump-on-the-stand-the-greatest-political-and-legal-peril-hes-ever-faced

 58 
 on: January 10, 2018, 05:53:35 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

Hahaha....all those stupid coal miners voted for Trump so they could get their jobs back.

Except that the lackeys appointed by Trump have come out AGAINST coal.

Hilarious, don't you think?   

 59 
 on: January 10, 2018, 05:31:18 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Im2Sexy4MyPants
i am happy with my big dork glad its not tiny like yours

 60 
 on: January 10, 2018, 05:17:47 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Im2Sexy4MyPants
4U  Grin


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
traffic-masters
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.125 seconds with 14 queries.