Judge Jackson Nails It

Judge Jackson made a record yesterday that pardoning Roger Stone would be obstruction of justice. Genius!

Stone “was prosecuted for covering up for the president.”

Boom!

Share
Avatar photo

Author: craigcrawford

Trail Mix Host. Lapsed journalist, author & retired pundit happily promoting nothing but the truth for Social Security checks.

99 thoughts on “Judge Jackson Nails It”

  3. yes yes, kudos to the good judge!

    meanwhile, in case you missed this curious tidbit buried in the IMpotus’ IC/DNI implosion

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/politics/russian-interference-trump-democrats.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

    Though intelligence officials have previously told lawmakers that Russia’s interference campaign was continuing, last week’s briefing included what appeared to be new information: that Russia intended to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries as well as the general election.
    […]
    Although the intelligence conclusion that Russia is trying to interfere in the 2020 Democratic primaries is new, in the 2019 report of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, there is a reference to Russian desires to help Mr. Sanders in his presidential primary campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016. The report quoted internal documents from the Internet Research Agency, a troll factory sponsored by Russian intelligence, in an order to its operatives: “Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest except for Sanders and Trump — we support them.”

  4. sooo, could some of that massive donor pool actually be laundered rubles and bots for Bernie?

    “bots for Bernie”  could compete with (or be a comrade of) one of those spoof PACs like the P.U.T.I.N. pac that glues maga hats on pigeons for IMpotus.

  6. I don’t know why you think that “pardoning Roger Stone would be obstruction of justice.” Of course it would not be.

    Jimmy Carter pardoned G. Gordon Liddy *, who had done much more than Stone as far as any criminal activities were concerned. Ford pardoned Nixon preceding impeachment and possible indictment. Nixon even contemplated pardoning himself.

    The issue with a “pardon” is that – per the SJC – a person accepts it and therefore acknowledges that they did, in fact, commit a crime. That could be the only reason a person like Stone may actually refuse to accept a presidential pardon. Of course… he is looking at 40 months and not 20 years like Liddy.

    Lastly, and you may not like to hear this, but President Trump likely could pardon himself for any federal crimes – even those relating to the previous impeachment – because the US Constitution’s intent was to prevent pardons in active impeachment cases, not ones that have been adjudicated. The design was to prevent deals or the thwarting of justice from taking place. Since the case was processed, technically, the President could still pardon himself. The only issue I see there (apart from a pardon meaning he accepts his guilt) is that the President was not charged with an actual federal crime and he was acquitted… so what would be the value? 

    * As a complete aside, one of the best Miami Vice episodes was “Back In the World,” which starred G. Gordon Liddy – who is a much more likable “bad guy” than Stone would be. It was the first episode that Don Johnson directed and I think his girlfriend had a part.

  10. politico:

    “American voters should decide American elections — not Vladimir Putin. All Members of Congress should condemn the president’s reported efforts to dismiss threats to the integrity of our democracy & to politicize our intel community,” Pelosi tweeted Thursday night.
    […]
    Pelosi revealed on Twitter that House members would have an election security briefing on March 10.

    will and who from intel community will be allowed to brief house at that scheduled elec sec briefing? will house have to subpoena them to come?

  11. the week:

    “I used to teach contract law, and I thought I would make this easy,” Warren told Erin Burnett and her town hall audience. She held up a contract she had written. “All that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it — I’ll text it — sign it, and then the women, or men, will be free to speak and tell their own stories,” Warren said, reading some relevant parts of the contract.

  12. @patd… It is the same presidential power. Why would a pardon or commutation of sentence be “obstruction of justice” if both are Constitutional? Of course it is not. Neither action denies wrong-doing took place. And as I pointed out above, when you accept a presidential pardon, you are acknowledging you committed a crime. The big difference is restoration of your rights, eg, right to vote, right to own firearms, etc. For example, Liddy cannot legally own guns, but as is often joked, his wife has a substantial gun collection. President Trump could simply commute Stone’s sentence or he can pardon. But neither is illegal.

  13. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/russia-trump-bernie-sanders-election-interference/606703/

    Now in 2020, the president and his political rivals have spent years locked in battle over things such as the Mueller investigation, impeachment, and America’s very institutions and role in the world. Russian trolls can largely just watch the Americans fight among themselves, and use fictitious Twitter personas to offer vigorous encouragement, as they did with the taco-truck video. They will keep prodding the same bruises in American society, or encouraging cries of electoral fraud if there’s a contested Democratic primary or a tight general election.
    The U.S. doesn’t need Russians to erode faith in its elections—one buggy app at the Iowa caucus did that just fine, prompting the president’s campaign manager to wonder on Twitter whether the caucus was “rigged.” Trump is both a cause and effect of existing American lack of faith in institutions, which he encourages with frequent reference to the “deep state.” And Sanders gets authentic support for his criticism of political and economic elites, which the Russia-linked accounts also promote.

     

  15. Pardoning Stone as obstruction….of course it would be exactly that.
    Intent.
    Carter and Liddy is simply not comparable to T and Stone.

  16. trump would be pardoning stone for covering up trump’s crimes. 
     
    liddy obstructed prosecution of nixon. Pres Carter had no relationship with the criminal or his crimes. 
     
    That’s a rather enormous difference. 

  18. Her Honour was so explicit in making the point that the the crime and any subsequent pardon would be for the corrupt president’s benefit that she seemed to be begging Ms Pelosi to dust-off the lmpeachment files.

  19. Meanwhile, the rest of us should pool our funds offering Stone a massive book contract with an Oct 15th publication date. The contents must detail all the sordid details of his relationship with Trump.

  21.  

    seeing more like the above cartoonist’s visual allusion to “warren the warrior wonk” label that’s making the rounds.

     

  22. @xrepublican @Sturgeone And the crimes are?… Was President Trump convicted of something while I stepped away from my computer?

    In any event… There is clearly no “obstruction of justice” if Stone is pardoned or his sentence is commuted. Neither action impedes justice or the ability of investigators to do anything. If you disagree, explain how pardoning Stone or commuting his sentence later in any way serves as legitimate obstruction of justice, especially since the President would be exercising a Constitutional power.

    Stone was convicted for lying to Congress on what he knew, and for witness tampering relating to his case. A pardon or commutation does not change those facts. The former is an act of “forgiveness” and restoration of rights. While the latter is merely a reduction in sentence. Neither act has any impact on future impeachment proceedings (if Congress decides to do that), or any federal or state criminal actions that may be taken against President Trump after he leaves office. If it does… please explain…

  23. MH, could be X-R’s, sturge’s & craig’s comments re obstruction suggests an appearance of intimidation of future witnesses/whistleblowers or having the appearance of pardon promises to future witnesses who will lie for DT.

     

    note the difference in DT response to Michael Cohen’s sentence and Stone’s 

  24. …sometimes Craig says dumb shit, Mike.  He means well.

    (same could be said for me shhh please don’t tell anyone shhh)

  25. Also, i now support closing the “Liddy Loophole”.  Thanks for making me aware of his flagrant and willful disregard for the spirit of the Law.

  26. yup….  sometimes we all forget a name or two….   and all of us have and will continue to say dumb shit from time to time.  We are all human….  unless we’re not.

  27. Pogo, thanks so much for linking the Quinnipiac Poll. I found the head-to-head match-ups of Trump against each of the potential Dem candidates especially interesting as it included so many demographic categorizations in each result. I was especially reassured by Mayor Pete’s support from non-whites. I think he could be a winner if we have the courage to support him.

  29. @patd I fail to see how pardoning someone or commuting a sentence creates an appearance of intimidation… And it is a serious stretch to say someone, sometime in the future may lie about something because someone else may or may not be pardoned therefore any pardon is a form of obstruction… There is no promise or guarantee. And an obstruction of what? What the heck does a pardon of Stone obstruct? It just does not make sense. I’m sorry.

    I get that people don’t like Trump and want him gone, but FYI… Election 2020 is coming to a voting booth near you…

    Now… with all that said… If the President directly offered a pardon to someone in exchange for them lying to Congress or in court (whether it related to him or not)… THAT would be “obstruction” and facilitating perjury – both impeachable offenses… At the risk of sounding funny or naive or both, I’ll say, “I don’t think even Trump is THAT stupid to offer someone a pardon in exchange for lying to Congress.” 😛

  30. ”don’t think even Trump is THAT stupid to offer someone a pardon in exchange for lying to Congress.“
     
    Correct me if i’m wrong but didn’t trump do exactly that, on twitter, by dangling a potential pardon in front of Michael Cohen (a day before using the same platform to engage in witness intimidation against the same when it became clear he would cooperate with the prosecution and House investigators)?

  32. George Mason: “The president ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic.” Constitutional Convention, 1787

  33. @Blink The real question is… If what President Trump actually did was to offer a pardon in exchange for lying to Congress, and he did so on Twitter, why was that not brought forward in Impeachment by the House Democrats?

    I’m all for criminal prosecution for people who commit crimes, and impeachment for people who deserve to be impeached… But let’s be honest… Sometimes, our passions color or fuel our perceptions of reality…

    When Trump first entered the race for President I said he was Commodus from the movie Gladiator. An immoral man who knew how to govern via the mob. In order to defeat him and restore the Republic, we need our Maximus… Impeachment?… Bernie Sanders?… Pffft… Please…

  34. i’m very dispassionate these days, good Sir.  No, i don’t agree that a lack of prosecution vacates a crime(s), especially since i watched them happen with my own two eyes, but i’m no lawyer.

    Oh, and i enjoy me some Ridley Scott, myself, but that movie is terribly historically-inaccurate, and poorly suited for relevant analogies. “Kingdom of Heaven” is really good, also.

    (Liz is the Russell Crowe you’ve been looking for btw not that i love my analogy)

  35. Craig, the Mason quote is good!
     
    Well, I voted.  And that takes care of that for now. The existential anxiety is relieved.
     
    Surprise, surprise.  In Texas you now take a long paper ballot to the machine where you make your choices.  It was 18 screens long, and them it spits out the printed ballot that you can check.  Then you take it to a machine that reads is and keeps it. That machine is like a vault.  I was very surprised and pleased to see a PAPER BALLOT.  YES!!

  36. “Don’t tell me you’re innocent, Carlo, because it insults my intelligence- and that makes me very angry.”

  37. @craigcrawford I think the clear intent of the US Constitution is to prevent a President from pardoning someone currently being impeached and facing trial (including – and especially – themselves).

    Think about it logically. If a person is acquitted during an impeachment, there would be no impeachment going on and no guilty verdict. What would someone need to be pardoned from? What would be the point? If someone is pardoned following an impeachment acquittal, then it would have to then be for something OTHER than the case of impeachment, eg, a criminal case that is brought forth later.

    In the case of Roger Stone… He was not being impeached for anything. So, of course he can be pardoned or have his sentence commuted.

    Even if one were to accept an extremely broad interpretation of the “Cases of impeachment” phrase to limit a President’s pardon powers and prevent him from pardoning anyone involved in an impeachment proceeding, Stone was not a witness in that inquiry.

    Bottom line – Stone was no impeached; and there is no active case of impeachment going on. So, “yes,” Roger Stone can be pardoned or have his sentence commuted.

  39. Crackers – Where is the crab hat?  This thread could use it. 
    Trumpsky slurs so much lately.  Has anyone compared how he sounded three years ago v now?  

  40. Michael, I just don’t see how it’s legal to pardon someone convicted for protecting you from impeachment, which the judge cleverly established. A rebuttable argument to be sure and you make a good case. But when we’ve got a traitor in the White House trying to establish a monarchy we’re going to have to get creative in our legal thinking. The founders would agree. 

  42. OMG if you conservatives get to have that comma you don’t get to assert “except in cases of impeachment” excludes impeachment of the President.
     
    Pretzel logic

  43. Thanks, bink!  Your turn.
     
    blue, no, it wasn’t busy at all. There were people there, but it moved fast enough that it was smooth. That’s why I always do it early.

  44. @Bink I think my analogy is strictly between Commodus (in the movie) and Trump. It is not perfect, but certainly both used the mob with great cunning to maintain power, both were crafty and outwitted their opponents for long stretches (esp the established politicians), and both were immoral men – each with the perception that something is not quite right with their thinking. No, the movie is not historically accurate, but I’m not sure that matters to the analogy… As for your assertion that Senator Warren is our Maximus… I’ll borrow from the classic retort on Arrested Development… “Her?…” I know lots of progressives love her, but I think she is biggest fraud of the well-known candidates running on the Democratic side. She does not have a truth-telling style for when she lies, which separates her from Bernie…

  46. V for Vendetta
    “Our story begins, as these stories often do, with a young, up-and-coming politician. He’s a deeply religious man and a member of the Conservative Party. He’s completely single-minded and has no regard for the political process. The more power he attains, the more obvious his zealotry and the more aggressive his supporters become. Eventually, his party launches a special project in the name of “national security”….Fueled by the media, fear and panic spread quickly, fracturing and dividing the country until, at last, the true goal comes into view….But the end result, the true genius of the plan, was the fear. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government, and through it, our politician was ultimately appointed to the newly-created position of high chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history.”
    “He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.”
    “People should not be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of their people.”
     

  47.  ”I think [Warren] is biggest fraud of the well-known candidates running on the Democratic side.”
     
    Yeah i hear consevatives parroting that exact phrase a lot, lately.  They must be afraid of her.
     
    Max ih moose, Max ih moose!

  48. Ha!  Well, she already had my vote, but now there’s a little, extra sauce on it. Yummy!   

  49. Harry Reid, who recruited Warren (and Obama) to the Senate is at his end of days but wondering if he’s on the phone right now trying to stop Bernie in Nevada.

  50. @craigcrawford A bad president is not a justification for creating bad law. And an interpretation of a person’s actions, which was not the basis of the convictions decided by the jury or used in the impeachment inquiry, is not a substitution for a finding of fact. I do not justify the President’s actions, or Stone’s, or Flynn’s… Nor do I excuse anyone’s behavior. Though I want a better President, why is becoming a lawless Banana Republic somehow the gold standard to removing a President you don’t like? We need better candidates… To get better candidates, we need more competition… Right now, we have a political monopoly, and the end result is we get two inferior products because both sides know they can fail up, and fail for dollars… So long as they set the rules, exclude competition and fail for dollars… nothing will change.

  51. if he’s serious about looking for a republican for DNI with IC background, why doesn’t he nominate rep. will hurd who according to wiki:

    Hurd worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for nine years from 2000 to 2009, stationed primarily in Washington, D.C., including a tour of duty as an operations officer in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. He speaks Urdu, the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, where he worked undercover. One of his roles at the CIA was briefing members of Congress, which is what made Hurd want to pursue politics. He returned to Texas after his CIA service and worked as a partner with Crumpton Group LLC, a strategic advisory firm, and as a senior adviser with FusionX, a cybersecurity firm.

     

  52. Yeah, CC, resign yourself to apathy because nothing you do matters, and don’t trust your own eyes because reality is subjective.

  53. @Blink LMAO… I’m not a Conservative… Not a Republican… And certainly not afraid of Warren… Instead of debating on the issues, you are just resorting to that “Oh, those are right-wing talking points” bulls–t to try and dismiss what I’m saying without actually using facts or reason to disprove what I am saying… IMO… Warren should have dropped out after New Hampshire. She has no “big rock” campaign issue, not a diverse-enough voter base, and no path to victory. She is putting all her eggs into Nevada, and will finish 4th or 5th. She will get killed in South Carolina (if she has not dropped out by then). And if she bothers to stick around through Super Tuesday, she will have the joy of losing every state including her home state of Oklahoma and her adopted state of Massachusetts (which is my home state). Most of her support will go to Bernie. Her endorsement will become far less valuable in the weeks ahead than it was last week… It’s over…

  54. “She does not have a truth-telling style for when she lies, which separates her from Bernie…”

    Michael,  please clarify your above assertion.

    are you saying that Bernie  does have a “truth-telling style” when he lies? 

    describe what exactly you mean by a “truth-telling style” when telling a lie.  

    what lies in particular make her a fraud in your eyes and disqualify her as a candidate?

  55. Stone juror Seth Cousins on CNN this morning: “As a result of Stone’s actions” the House impeachment was “incomplete and inaccurate.” Pardoning Stone would therefore invoke the impeachment exception to this power. 

  56. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/484084-prominent-texas-latina-endorses-warren

    The chief executive of Texas’s most populous county Friday endorsed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for the Democratic presidential nomination.
    Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo announced her endorsement in the wake of a debate performance in Las Vegas on Wednesday that gave a much-needed boost to Warren’s campaign, just as Nevada is set to hold its caucuses Saturday.
    With Hidalgo’s endorsement, Warren could get a boost in Texas, a Super Tuesday state voting on March 3 where the Latino vote will play a key role in assigning the state’s 261 delegates.
    “Whether it’s combating climate change or increasing opportunities for minorities in small business, Elizabeth has a plan for that. But my support for her is not because of her plans, it’s because of who she is. The Elizabeth Warren you speak with one-on-one is the same Elizabeth you see on the stump. She’s a genuine person who will tell you exactly what she believes and where she stands,” said Hidalgo in a statement.

  57. Shall i debate the “impeachment of Roger Stone” on merit?  It’s a ridiculous diversionary argument.  

     
    If one finds oneself coincidentally parroting Republican talking points, it may behoove one to reassess their philosophies, or maybe just own up to being a Republican.

    How is Elizabeth Warren a fraud?  I perceive she has more integrity in her left pinkie than the entire trump administration, but maybe i’m a rube and i’m having the wool pulled over my eyes.  Elucidate me.

  58. Well, like Poobah I am a lawyer, and I’ve studied the Constitution, albeit years ago, but I have revisited certain clauses in it – the impeachment clause and pardon clauses most recently.  I don’t believe that the pardon of Stone if (when) it comes will be unlawful  The language is, “[the President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment”. I believe a Stone pardon is way outside anything the Founders who disagreed with George Mason could have envisioned or would have approved the specific language they did if they had envisioned such an abuse of the power to pardon.  I agree with Michael Hackmer’s analysis of the clause and don’t believe that the “except in cases of impeachment” language applies in this case.  I concur that the intent of the clause is to prevent the President form pardoning his henchmen who Congress decides to impeach for their collusion with the president to lie to Congress in order to keep him from being impeached. I believe trying to stretch the meaning of the clause to prevent a pardon of Stone is a dead end issue.  Again, though, I do not for a moment believe the founders would have countenanced the pardoning of a witness who was convicted of lying to Congress in the context of an impeachment inquiry against the President if they had thought the document could be read to allow that. But in reality, the words are the words and unless Congress passed a law narrowly restricting the pardon power, which was ultimately upheld by SCOTUS, we are just left to say this ain’t right.  While the action would be criminal in any other context, it’s protected when the president exercises it.
     
    And in the meantime, the media is busy placing the Dem nomination crown on Bernie!’s head.  Just wonderful, right?  

  59. patd, Bernie! lying or truthing Bernie! has one style – angry old man who’s going to tell you how it is.  Now get off my lawn.

  60. hey…  I’m really glad for all you lawyers on this blog.  However…  I do have some popcorn I’d gladly share with any non lawyers reading this thread.  🙂
     
    ps…  Bernie can eat my shit…

  61. Pogo, you nailed it: “I do not for a moment believe the founders would have countenanced the pardoning of a witness who was convicted of lying to Congress in the context of an impeachment inquiry against the President if they had thought the document could be read to allow that.”

    Legislative history matters, as Scalia often argued. The brief I’d write for my case against this pardon would extensively quote the 1787 debate to argue their original intent was never to allow a traitor to use the power to create a monarchy. 

  64. Well Martin said, ““Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” I don’t think anyone has thought about this in the context of today’s politics, certainly none of the candidates.  
     
    We are in the midst of dealing with a crazy (I’d say cunning but that implies thought and analysis to take advantage of one’s position and circumstances – not just the belching forth of evil rantings of the president with no soul) bastard shredding the Constitution because (a) he is largely immune from prosecution and (b) he’s protected from removal from office by a supplicant Senate.  He is, what’s that word I’m searching for?  Oh yes, despicable.  
     
    Look, I don’t like this any more than you, Poobah.  If I thought it wouldn’t actually help the a-hole’s re-election bid, I’d scream from the rooftops for Schiff et al. to crank up the impeachment investigation again, issue the shit out of subpoenas and go to court to enforce them, dammit.  I think the process is there to use – the question is will its use inure to SFB’s political benefit?  If so, forget it and work on GOTV.

  65. I miswrote earlier. It is not that trump was convicted, if he were, he couldn’t pardon. It is that the stone crimes were committed to benefit trump and to cover up the crimes of the trump campaign and employees of the russian government. 

  66. If I thought that another impeachment would upset him to the point of having a fatal stroke or heart attack, I’d go for it. However, he’d probably only have a little stroke or heart attack, followed by a tsunami of misplaced national sympathy. And, that’d give me a stroke or heart attack.
     
     

  70. Sanders on CNN, asked when he was told by U.S. intel officials Russians helping his campaign: “I’m guessing about a month ago.” Funny he didn’t mention it then. Guess that file was buried with his health records.

  71. Sanders on CNN asked why Russian help for his campaign “came out now if you had a briefing a month ago?” says “I’ll let you guess. One day before the Nevada caucus. Why do you think it came out? The Washington Post? Good friend.” In other words he wanted it kept secret. 

  72. Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) tweeted on Fri, Feb 21, 2020:

    “Putin’s Puppet is at it again, taking Russian help for himself. 

    He knows he can’t win without it. And we can’t let it happen.” 

  73. Just googled Trumpsky’s symptoms.  Slurred speech and agitation are signs of vascular dementia. 
    Bernie was short of breath and loosening his collar after his first go-around with Joe on Wednesday.  His nose was blue. (His lips were blue before the heart attack.)  
    Tax records and health records should be released now, for all candidates on both sides. 
    How many NDAs did Mike have if he released 3 from them?  Only 3?  More, but these 3 are pretty tame?   

  74. Next debate, dog-pile on Bernie instead of Mike.  It’s all on the table now, what he knew and when he knew it.  Liz and Amy can take him down, while Pete looks snarky. 

  76. …guess where all those sincere left-of-center voters would go, should a certain front-runner be “up-ended”, shall we say??

  77. Tom Steyer’s latest ad: I’m a billionaire, too.  I started a successful business, too. I signed a giving pledge, too.  I can take on Trump, too.   And, he ends by calling Trump a “failure and a fraud.”    Tom is the working man’s billionaire, bless him. 

  79. Did/is Bernie actively hiding help from a foreign state, or, just knowledge that it’s probably happening?   At least he didn’t lie when he said it wouldn’t surprise him.
    Betnie has a way out of the race with, well, I’ll call it dignity.  His failing health.
    In Texas, I think Republicans who don’t like Trump will vote for Bloomberg, so there is that to contend with, too.  In the meantime, the weekend is upon us and there’s still the possibility of an errant lightning bolt on the golf course.

  82. Bernie – he drives me nuts.  Angry old socialist..get off my … ummm … our lawn. Now he’s got something else in common with SFB – Russian help with his nomination and an unconvincing denial of the same. Prick

  83. Watching Trump at his rallies last night in Colorado and today in Vegas I’m thinking Dems should heed an old military saying, “Hit with a clenched fist, don’t feel with your fingers.” 

  84. Can the super delegates save us from Bernie?   Guess it depends on a shaky lead?  Watching The Dick Cavette Show from 1970-something.  Billy Graham (a Democrat) talking about the noisy left and right getting media attention when there are so many more in the middle.   

  85. Bernie!  Trump lite (or Trump like). You be the judge.  At WaPo. 

    Asked why he did not disclose the briefing publicly, Sanders replied, “Because I go to many intelligence briefings which I don’t reveal to the public.”Sanders offered few details about what officials told him.

    Asked why the briefing was reported now, a month later, Sanders said: “I’ll let you guess about one day before the, the Nevada caucus. Why do you think it came out?”

    Sanders pointed to a Post reporter and said sarcastically: “It was The Washington Post? Good friends.”

    “We report news when we learn it,” said Kristine Coratti, a spokeswoman for The Post.

    LSOS 

     

  86. Spirited and good conversation throughout. I do appreciate that here (unlike many boards on Facebook I’ve been a member of) we keep things civil and fun… I do recognize what people think and want vis-a-vis Stone and impeachment, but I see it as more political theatrics and histrionics. In the end, we see politicians and the media push these notions because controversy gets them camera time and helps raise money. The notion that a man who is not a public servant and not tried for impeachment would trigger the “Cases of impeachment” language actually does the People a fundamental disservice… Regarding Russia and Bernie… I have no love for Senator BS. But we have all turned into psychotic Jan Brady’s running around screaming, “Russia! Russia! Russia!” If the week before Mother’s Day, Russia said they support Americans sending cards to their mother’s with messages of love, millions of people would say, “Whoa! Russia supports this?” At some point we need to seriously stop worrying WTF Russia says. We have become insane about the subject. Here is how people think: “Well, I know Russia hates America and wants to undermine our political system with lies and subversive campaigns. And their media is nothing more than a Kremlin propaganda machine that… Wait! OMG! Did you hear? Russia supports Bernie Sanders! They just announced this on Russian news! They would not have done that if he was not a Russian agent or Putin’s secret lover!” (eye roll) It’s a basic PSYOPs campaign where they want to overcome our physical and financial advantages by creating a psychological advantage… Lastly… I have never said that candidates should not fight for what they believe or try. I am the King of supporting underdog political causes as I’ve been a Reformer since Perot first ran in 1992. I recognize quite a lot of people like Senator Warren and think the world of her. I won’t break-down WHY I see her as fraud, because I don’t really think that would be helpful or even important. My criticism of her campaign is really centered around her lack of a “big rock” / signature issue that voters care about and her inability to diversify her appeal. She tried to make it healthcare, but to take it from Bernie she needed a way to differentiate her plan from his. She needs to diversify her appeal, but she performs the worst among men of all the other candidates. I think she was great addressing Bloomberg’s past, but that only helps to solidify her support where she is strongest. She needs to appeal to men across the spectrum, and as of now – she has yet to do that. Turning her messaging towards men (especially minority men heading into South Carolina and Super Tuesday) and economic issues will help turn things around. That she – or anyone in her campaign – does not see this is why she is going to lose… She is marginalizing herself…

  87. Ok, if you’re a good-faith contributor and i was a little too abrasive, Mr. H, please pardon me, and don’t associate my contributions with anyone else’s, here.  i speak for myself, only, but by the same token, “imma do me”. Don’t let me scare you off- many here will give you the kind of discussion for which you’re looking, but i’ll call out “bullshit” when i see it.   Solutions-oriented thought is my favorite kind, not that anyone cares what i prefer!  Have a good weekend, go Liz💪

  89. 84% of Sanders donations under $200 meaning donors don’t have to be identified under FEC rules, meaning Russia can pour cash into his campaign with no fingerprints.

  92. It seems to me that russia has gone to an enormous amount of effort to help trump, including illegal donations to the trump and bernie! campaigns, hacking, and espionage aimed at defeating trump’s opponents and corrupting the eminently corruptible trump in ways detrimental to US security. All this is on record, and if it be histrionic, then so too were the warnings of Paul Revere, William Shirer and Winston Churchill.  

  93. The russian/republican plan has to be just as the creep plumbers’ plan in 1971 : turn the weakest Democrat into the nominee. bernie! is the new McGovern. 

  94. Sturg, it’s OK if you no longer want to post Saturday threads. I’d rather not wait all night to get them, especially since I have no way to communicate with you via email. So let’s just stop. I’ve enjoyed them but too much trouble waiting for them.

  95. That kitchen he is building is hard physical labor and he’s no spring-chicken… the noble Sir is likely sleeping and healing, and i’m sure he understands.
     
    Use your platform!

  96. …and i just gotta say, lest the utterly-baffling nefariousness of the Putin-led Russian regime be questioned: we’re talking about a nation-state that uses polonium two-thirty-whatever dissolved in tea to murder political dissidents harbored in foreign (to them) countries and employs de-badged state soldiers to invade Crimea and then denies that those obviously Russian soldiers are acting at the behest and direction of the Russian state (which is patently absurd), so please understand my personal consternation when i don’t perceive it a bridge too far to believe that nation-state might kick a few rubles down to eager and desperate internet trolls, to fuck with us.  Of course they would, as often as possible. 

Comments are closed.