Trump rising in poll

"According to the poll, 45% of Americans said Trump was better suited to create jobs, while 32% said Biden was the better candidate for that."

That may be significant if we are rebuilding America this fall.

$100 oil?

IF this comes about, I expect the president will take credit for it. Whoever the President is - Trump,, Biden, or Klobuchar.

Is msn.com your homepage?

(05-06-2020 10:58 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Is msn.com your homepage?

Is gif.com yours?

(05-06-2020 04:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 10:58 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Is msn.com your homepage?

Is gif.com yours?

Getty images?

I saw a blurb that the DOJ is dropping the Flynn case.

https://apnews.com/ae1ad252bb13490db2ceffc5d17b6d92

Hate to say I told you so......

Crushing defeat for all those Logan act absolutists that seemingly have emerged from the woodwork.

I wonder what the judge told them on the side --- I mean, there has to be some really ugly laundry still there for them to do this. Or, perhaps the heat level on how fked up the case was from the get go finally got too hot. Awesome 'signature prosecution' from Mueller et. al.

I still think Strzok should spend time at a Club Fed.

The more that comes out about the unfair and illegal maneuvering by top partisans in the government, the more they will have have to face that maybe their side is NOT actually "holier than thou".

Surprised this got no mention from the faux anti-authoritarians.

(05-08-2020 01:04 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Surprised this got no mention from the faux anti-authoritarians.

No more surprised than your utter inability to discuss the underlying legal issues on it. I guess you are a Logan Act born-again type as well....

The funny thing, is that the memos that were recently unearthed couldnt be more explicit *and* obvious about what a targeted railroad *and* and specific hit job was undertaken against Flynn.

That seems to 'evade your radar' for some strange reason.

(05-08-2020 01:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 01:04 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Surprised this got no mention from the faux anti-authoritarians.

No more surprised than your utter inability to discuss the underlying legal issues on it. I guess you are a Logan Act born-again type as well....

The funny thing, is that the memos that were recently unearthed couldnt be more explicit *and* obvious about what a targeted railroad *and* and specific hit job was undertaken against Flynn.

That seems to 'evade your radar' for some strange reason.

And that is relevant to the comment from the head of the DOJ about how history is written by the winners when asked about how his decision will be judged?

I would have hoped the head of the DOJ would have pointed to his decision being correct and soundly founded in our legal doctrine...

To be specific, lad, it was *not* entirely his decision, and it was absolutely not his process that led to the recommendation to stop the prosecution. Had you noted, Barr and the DOJ had a 'third party' review the case and its ramifications. In this case, it was the US Attorney for St Louis.

And you might note that the full fledged recommendation of Jensen was that the underlying basis for prosecution was not sound. Barr implemented that recommendation.

Further, you dont even seem to note that Barr stated he felt 'it was our duty to dismiss the case.'

The question and line that he was responding to their was the 'are you prepared for the incoming', and *NOT* a question on the basis on why the DOJ dropped the case.

And you seeminlgy miss 'a crime could not be established here. They did not have a basis for a counter-intelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage.'

And you miss 'there is one standard of justice.'

And you miss "I am doing the law's bidding.'

You might want to peruse that segment. Just watching it would help. All the issues above are in it. mind you. I guess you just didnt catch all that stupid stuff on the 'basis of law', and chose to focus on the reponse above, which is a response to the *political question* of 'are you prepared for the partisan incoming?' Even then, that tidbit omits the bulk of his answer.

Good grief, lad. Get your facts straight.

(05-08-2020 02:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To be specific, lad, it was *not* entirely his decision, and it was absolutely not his process that led to the recommendation to stop the prosecution. Had you noted, Barr and the DOJ had a 'third party' review the case and its ramifications. In this case, it was the US Attorney for St Louis.

And you might note that the full fledged recommendation of Jensen was that the underlying basis for prosecution was not sound. Barr implemented that recommendation.

Further, you dont even seem to note that Barr stated he felt 'it was our duty to dismiss the case.'

The question and line that he was responding to their was the 'are you prepared for the incoming', and *NOT* a question on the basis on why the DOJ dropped the case.

You might want to peruse that segment. Just watching it would help. All the issues above are in it. mind you. I guess you just didnt catch all that stupid stuff on the 'basis of law', and chose to focus on the reponse above, which is a response to the *political question* of 'are you prepared for the partisan incoming?' Even then, that tidbit omits the bulk of his answer.

Good grief, lad. Get your facts straight.

And you seeminlgy miss 'a crime could not be established here. They did not have a basis for a counter-intelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage.'

And you miss 'there is one standard of justice.'

And you miss "I am doing the law's bidding.'

Put lipstick on the pig all you want, but the head of the DOJ laughing about how history is written by the winners is pretty ******* bad. Ignore that statement, and all the others (which I've heard) are exactly what you want to hear. But this one is so glaring that it really defeats the others.

(05-08-2020 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To be specific, lad, it was *not* entirely his decision, and it was absolutely not his process that led to the recommendation to stop the prosecution. Had you noted, Barr and the DOJ had a 'third party' review the case and its ramifications. In this case, it was the US Attorney for St Louis.

And you might note that the full fledged recommendation of Jensen was that the underlying basis for prosecution was not sound. Barr implemented that recommendation.

Further, you dont even seem to note that Barr stated he felt 'it was our duty to dismiss the case.'

The question and line that he was responding to their was the 'are you prepared for the incoming', and *NOT* a question on the basis on why the DOJ dropped the case.

You might want to peruse that segment. Just watching it would help. All the issues above are in it. mind you. I guess you just didnt catch all that stupid stuff on the 'basis of law', and chose to focus on the reponse above, which is a response to the *political question* of 'are you prepared for the partisan incoming?' Even then, that tidbit omits the bulk of his answer.

Good grief, lad. Get your facts straight.

And you seeminlgy miss 'a crime could not be established here. They did not have a basis for a counter-intelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage.'

And you miss 'there is one standard of justice.'

And you miss "I am doing the law's bidding.'

Put lipstick on the pig all you want, but the head of the DOJ laughing about how history is written by the winners is pretty ******* bad. Ignore that statement, and all the others (which I've heard) are exactly what you want to hear. But this one is so glaring that it really defeats the others.

I guess you did miss all the other quotes. Or better yet, you *explicitly* choose to ignore them above. Good for ya, lad. You are doing as well as I can expect from you.

Talk about 'putting lipstick on'. Ignore everything else for the point of one edited statement. I would like to see what else Barr noted after that, as he continued to talk as that comment was clipped mid-thought as the tape very clearly indicates.

But I am sure with your 'enlightenment' you just never bothered to notice that. Much like you never bothered to notice the other quotes in the clip. Funny that.

Lad, surely you know that the observation that history is written by the winners is an old saw.

In fact, it's one that revisionists love to cite.

(05-08-2020 02:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Lad, surely you know that the observation that history is written by the winners is an old saw.

In fact, it's one that revisionists love to cite.

Yep, I'm well aware of the saying.

It seems grossly inappropriate for Barr to use it. I mean, he is an appointed official that did not run for office, and he oversees the DOJ. So him falling back on that saying is startling to say the least. I always think of that saying as being political in nature - shouldn't this decision be apolitical, especially since Barr laid out how he feels it was grounded in law?

Here is the full quote, lad:

"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."

Amazing how what was edited out seems to say just what the hell you are jawing about here, isnt it?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-ge...ranscript/

Seems you shot off a tad early without all the fing facts. Or bleat some more. I do love the somewhat deceptive edit that was aired. It fooled the stupid ones I assume. I look forward to your statement that you mouthed off on a subject without having the full facts, and opined on a comment that was not the full comment, and that the full comment did what you said it should do.

Leave it to the whack a mole to publish a partial and misleading comment. Leave it to lad to go full fing jihad on the deceptive aired edit.

(05-08-2020 02:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is the full quote, son:

"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-ge...ranscript/

I suggest you tuck your tail between your legs and run off. Seems you shot off a tad early without all the fing facts. or bleat some more. I do love the somewhat deceptive edit that was aired. It fooled the stupid ones I assume.

For someone who foams at the mouth about ad homs...

I appreciate you pulling up the entire transcript - that is not nearly as bad as it appeared. Honestly, the entire quote makes it A-OK and makes a lot more sense.

(05-08-2020 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Lad, surely you know that the observation that history is written by the winners is an old saw.

In fact, it's one that revisionists love to cite.

Yep, I'm well aware of the saying.

It seems grossly inappropriate for Barr to use it. I mean, he is an appointed official that did not run for office, and he oversees the DOJ. So him falling back on that saying is startling to say the least. I always think of that saying as being political in nature - shouldn't this decision be apolitical, especially since Barr laid out how he feels it was grounded in law?

But in that one sentence he is not commenting on the DOJ decision, he is making an observation about the nature of history. If someone asks you a question about history, it is not "grossly inappropriate" to make a comment about the nature of history. And to be honest, I'm surprised that anyone -- especially anyone familiar with the saying in the first place -- would seize on this comment as anything other than that.


Edit: now that I see the full quotation (thanks to tanq), it looks like my interpretation -- which seemed like the obvious interpretation all along -- is exactly correct. The mystery is that anyone was so quick to interpret it otherwise.

As for the editing: I wouldn't have thought it deceptive, but then I didn't think the audience was so simple as to seize on it the way they did. But now seeing how they did so, I agree that the editing was deceptive.

(05-08-2020 02:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is the full quote, son:

"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-ge...ranscript/

I suggest you tuck your tail between your legs and run off. Seems you shot off a tad early without all the fing facts. or bleat some more. I do love the somewhat deceptive edit that was aired. It fooled the stupid ones I assume.

For someone who foams at the mouth about ad homs...

I appreciate you pulling up the entire transcript - that is not nearly as bad as it appeared. Honestly, the entire quote makes it A-OK and makes a lot more sense.

I edited out the ad homs prior to reply, FYI.