Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:41 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73441 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1795 ... 1837  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5807
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Also, the narrative that the investigation was initiated to help Crooked H win is kind of undercut by the fact that no one mentioned it till after the election.....



I don't particularly care for the idea that the investigation was started to help Hillary win - who's pedaling that by the way - but for arguments sake how do you figure that works? How does not mentioning it until after the election undercut the claim? If we assume that it was initiated for that purpose the matter of when it was mentioned is irrelevant.


Cause if they iniated it to help Hillary, why didn't they actually do anything with it to help Hillary?

Unless you don't think publicising the fact that at least two prominent former members of Trump's team (Manafort & Page) were under active investigation by intellegence services for links to a foreign power would have cost Trump votes.


The FISA court might have taken a dim view of that. Anyway that whole line doesn't hang together as far as I can see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15627
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Also, the narrative that the investigation was initiated to help Crooked H win is kind of undercut by the fact that no one mentioned it till after the election.....



I don't particularly care for the idea that the investigation was started to help Hillary win - who's pedaling that by the way - but for arguments sake how do you figure that works? How does not mentioning it until after the election undercut the claim? If we assume that it was initiated for that purpose the matter of when it was mentioned is irrelevant.


Cause if they iniated it to help Hillary, why didn't they actually do anything with it to help Hillary?

Unless you don't think publicising the fact that at least two prominent former members of Trump's team (Manafort & Page) were under active investigation by intellegence services for links to a foreign power would have cost Trump votes.


The FISA court might have taken a dim view of that. Anyway that whole line doesn't hang together as far as I can see.


Yeah, but if the object was to aid Hillary rather than actually pursue a conviction, the FISA court doesn't matter all that much.

There are a bunch of reasons why the idea that the investigation was started to help Hillary doesn't hold water, but for me the fact that anyone connected to it never did a damn thing to actually try and influence the election is the most obvious and clear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5807
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Also, the narrative that the investigation was initiated to help Crooked H win is kind of undercut by the fact that no one mentioned it till after the election.....



I don't particularly care for the idea that the investigation was started to help Hillary win - who's pedaling that by the way - but for arguments sake how do you figure that works? How does not mentioning it until after the election undercut the claim? If we assume that it was initiated for that purpose the matter of when it was mentioned is irrelevant.


Cause if they iniated it to help Hillary, why didn't they actually do anything with it to help Hillary?

Unless you don't think publicising the fact that at least two prominent former members of Trump's team (Manafort & Page) were under active investigation by intellegence services for links to a foreign power would have cost Trump votes.


The FISA court might have taken a dim view of that. Anyway that whole line doesn't hang together as far as I can see.


Yeah, but if the object was to aid Hillary rather than actually pursue a conviction, the FISA court doesn't matter all that much.

There are a bunch of reasons why the idea that the investigation was started to help Hillary doesn't hold water, but for me the fact that anyone connected to it never did a damn thing to actually try and influence the election is the most obvious and clear.


I think you might be undermining your position there. it is conceivable, for example, that the investigation might have been started to do both: help and convict.

if so there woulld be contradictory imperatives in play at different times.

I was going to say more but I ran out of energy for this.

back to what did Trump tweet next watch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15627
Santa wrote:

I think you might be undermining your position there. it is conceivable, for example, that the investigation might have been started to do both: help and convict.

if so there woulld be contradictory imperatives in play at different times.

I was going to say more but I ran out of energy for this.

back to what did Trump tweet next watch.


If there were conflicting imperatives at play, how come on of those imperatives seems to have been completely ignored?

Simple question - can you name a single instance where the investigation or any information gleaned from it was used to aid Hillary's election campaign?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 41821
paddyor wrote:
Sam Nunberg (former advisor and Stone apprentice) had a meltdown on 2-3 different channels about his grand jury subpaoena. Quite funny.


The guy is certifiable.

https://www.msnbc.com/katy-tur/watch/fo ... d_nn_tw_ma


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7483
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:

I think you might be undermining your position there. it is conceivable, for example, that the investigation might have been started to do both: help and convict.

if so there woulld be contradictory imperatives in play at different times.

I was going to say more but I ran out of energy for this.

back to what did Trump tweet next watch.


If there were conflicting imperatives at play, how come on of those imperatives seems to have been completely ignored?

Simple question - can you name a single instance where the investigation or any information gleaned from it was used to aid Hillary's election campaign?

That time when Comey dropped the email stuff about Crooked H days before the election was incredibly helpful to Hillary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 11733
So how much of what Nunberg has said will be in-admissable(he was having a break down - this is not normal behaviour) / questionable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 11733
paddyor wrote:
So how much of what Nunberg has said will be in-admissable(he was having a break down - this is not normal behaviour) / questionable.

Quote:
Stephen Gutowski
‏Verified account @StephenGutowski
27m27 minutes ago

Oh man. This is spiraling out of control. Erin Burnet says she smells alcohol on Sam Nunberg's breath.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 11733
He f**ked up somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 41821
He sounded almost suicidal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15627
Anyone care to take odds on Nunberg dying from Polonium poisoning?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 11733
https://twitter.com/Dalrymple/status/970822229398257664

:(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 11733
Quote:
Jill Colvin
‏Verified account @colvinj
31m31 minutes ago

Sam now seems to be rethinking his bluster, tells me he'll likely end up cooperating with Mueller's team, but would like to see the subpoena's scope narrowed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23005
Location: Middle East
SecretAgentMan wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Sam Nunberg (former advisor and Stone apprentice) had a meltdown on 2-3 different channels about his grand jury subpaoena. Quite funny.

“I think it would be funny if they arrest me.”

This will definitely end well for him. :lol:

:lol:

Just listening to his phonecall with CNN now... just a little unhinged there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23005
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Also, the narrative that the investigation was initiated to help Crooked H win is kind of undercut by the fact that no one mentioned it till after the election.....



I don't particularly care for the idea that the investigation was started to help Hillary win - who's peddling that by the way - but for arguments sake how do you figure that works? How does not mentioning it until after the election undercut the claim? If we assume that it was initiated for that purpose the matter of when it was mentioned is irrelevant.


Trump himself peddled it in the previously quoted, well thought out tweet.
"Why did the Obama Administration start an investigation into the Trump Campaign (with zero proof of wrongdoing) long before the Election in November? Wanted to discredit so Crooked H would win."

You'll have to check with him the logic behind it all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:23 pm
Posts: 903
Turbogoat wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Sam Nunberg (former advisor and Stone apprentice) had a meltdown on 2-3 different channels about his grand jury subpaoena. Quite funny.

“I think it would be funny if they arrest me.”

This will definitely end well for him. :lol:

:lol:

Just listening to his phonecall with CNN now... just a little unhinged there.


If he doesn't turn up...Mueller's team will be knocking/picking his lock early one morning soon (think what happened to Manafort.) Then they will happily track all his emails and phone records from his confiscated appliances.
Whilst he's sitting in a cell somewhere. Going to end very well for him all right.
:nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20799
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Also, the narrative that the investigation was initiated to help Crooked H win is kind of undercut by the fact that no one mentioned it till after the election.....



I don't particularly care for the idea that the investigation was started to help Hillary win - who's peddling that by the way - but for arguments sake how do you figure that works? How does not mentioning it until after the election undercut the claim? If we assume that it was initiated for that purpose the matter of when it was mentioned is irrelevant.


Trump himself peddled it in the previously quoted, well thought out tweet.
"Why did the Obama Administration start an investigation into the Trump Campaign (with zero proof of wrongdoing) long before the Election in November? Wanted to discredit so Crooked H would win."

You'll have to check with him the logic behind it all.


He's gone quiet on you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6100
Of all the arseholes on (or formerly on) the Trump bandwagon I think Nunberg is my new favourite. That is some absolutely top grade melting down. I look forward to hearing more from this man, although I suspect it's going to be tough to top this effort.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23005
Location: Middle East
penguin wrote:
Of all the arseholes on (or formerly on) the Trump bandwagon I think Nunberg is my new favourite. That is some absolutely top grade melting down. I look forward to hearing more from this man, although I suspect it's going to be tough to top this effort.


Is 'Nunberg' the way GWB would pronounce 'Nothingburger'?

As in, "Yo, Blair, so ya think these WMDs in Iraw a a nunberg or what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12186
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/key-epa-ai ... e-clients/

A key aide to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has been granted permission to make extra money moonlighting for private clients whose identities are being kept secret.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12619
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
Swamp draining at its finest.

Boss Tweed would stare in disbelief at the audacity of this administration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28880
Have the anti-trumpers been able to give the Orange one some credit on his "conversation with a GOP rep about the NRA and gun purchasing age yet?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15627
Some of the things he's said about gun control are a very small step in the right direction, sure.

But there are a couple of qualifiers of course -

1 - He's a compulsive liar and you can't accept any assurances or claims at face value.
2 - The gun control debate is so f'ed up that even if he had a genuine desire to do something (and I don't believe he has any desire to do anything that doesn't directly benefit him) he'd probably by stymied by the GOP & NRA lobbyists. It would take a great deal of dedication, patience and will for a president to actually achieve something meaningful on that front and while Trump has a great deal of will, he has miniscule levels of the other two attributes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28880
http://time.com/5179995/donald-trump-nra-gun-control-comments/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15627
Yeah, see that's so over the top and reactive that you can basically just dismiss it as Blowhard Trump talking shit again. It's essentially worthless because it's entirely a reaction to whatever he heard in the meeting or just beforehand and he'll change his mind 5 minutes later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19066
saffer13 wrote:


It's him talking to an audience and he's been flattered beforehand. He might actually think that, I don't know, I suspect he might actually be kind of sane when it comes to guns, but he just loves playing to an audience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28880
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15627
A quick google suggests he's already said something entirely different in another meeting.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... president/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11772
Most people from NYC, or any big city, aren't going to be pro-NRA. That's just a fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:16 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18130
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Quote:
67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump

Quote:
33 rules have been overturned:
Flood building standards
Proposed ban on a potentially harmful pesticide
Freeze on new coal leases on public lands
Methane reporting requirement
Anti-dumping rule for coal companies
Decision on Keystone XL pipeline
Decision on Dakota Access pipeline
Third-party settlement funds
Offshore drilling ban in the Atlantic and Arctic
Ban on seismic air gun testing in the Atlantic
Northern Bering Sea climate resilience plan
Royalty regulations for oil, gas and coal
Inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews
Permit-issuing process for new infrastructure projects
Green Climate Fund contributions
Endangered species listings
Hunting ban on wolves and grizzly bears in Alaska
Protections for whales and sea turtles
Reusable water bottles rule for national parks
National parks climate order
Environmental mitigation for federal projects
Calculation for “social cost” of carbon
Planning rule for public lands
Copper filter cake listing as hazardous waste
Mine cleanup rule
Sewage treatment pollution regulations
Ban on use of lead ammunition on federal lands
Restrictions on fishing
Fracking regulations on public lands
Migratory bird protections
Department of Interior climate policies
Rule regulating industrial polluters
Safety standards for “high hazard” trains

24 rollbacks are in progress:
Clean Power Plan
Paris climate agreement
Car and truck fuel-efficiency standards
Offshore oil and gas leasing
Status of 10 national monuments
Status of 12 marine areas
Limits on toxic discharge from power plants
Coal ash discharge regulations
Emissions standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants
Emissions rules for power plant start-up and shutdown
Sage grouse habitat protections
Regulations on oil and gas drilling in some national parks
Oil rig safety regulations
Regulations for offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels
Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge
Hunting method regulations in Alaska
Requirement for tracking emissions on federal highways
Emissions standards for trailers and glider kits
Limits on methane emissions on public lands
Permitting process for air-polluting plants
Use of birds in subsistence handicrafts
Coal dust rule
Haze rule for national parks
Review process for forest restoration projects

10 rollbacks are in limbo:
Wetland and tributary protections
Methane emission limits at new oil and gas wells
Limits on landfill emissions
Mercury emission limits for power plants
Hazardous chemical facility regulations
Groundwater protections for uranium mines
Efficiency standards for appliances
Efficiency standards for federal buildings
Rule helping consumers buy fuel-efficient tires
Aircraft emissions standards

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ersed.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:25 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 35601
Location: in transit
The Man Without Fear wrote:
Swamp draining at its finest.

Boss Tweed would stare in disbelief at the audacity of this administration.


Boss Hogg, on the other hand, would be applauding with his chicken free hand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12619
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
Quote:
67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump

Quote:
33 rules have been overturned:
Flood building standards
Proposed ban on a potentially harmful pesticide
Freeze on new coal leases on public lands
Methane reporting requirement
Anti-dumping rule for coal companies
Decision on Keystone XL pipeline
Decision on Dakota Access pipeline
Third-party settlement funds
Offshore drilling ban in the Atlantic and Arctic
Ban on seismic air gun testing in the Atlantic
Northern Bering Sea climate resilience plan
Royalty regulations for oil, gas and coal
Inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews
Permit-issuing process for new infrastructure projects
Green Climate Fund contributions
Endangered species listings
Hunting ban on wolves and grizzly bears in Alaska
Protections for whales and sea turtles
Reusable water bottles rule for national parks
National parks climate order
Environmental mitigation for federal projects
Calculation for “social cost” of carbon
Planning rule for public lands
Copper filter cake listing as hazardous waste
Mine cleanup rule
Sewage treatment pollution regulations
Ban on use of lead ammunition on federal lands
Restrictions on fishing
Fracking regulations on public lands
Migratory bird protections
Department of Interior climate policies
Rule regulating industrial polluters
Safety standards for “high hazard” trains

24 rollbacks are in progress:
Clean Power Plan
Paris climate agreement
Car and truck fuel-efficiency standards
Offshore oil and gas leasing
Status of 10 national monuments
Status of 12 marine areas
Limits on toxic discharge from power plants
Coal ash discharge regulations
Emissions standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants
Emissions rules for power plant start-up and shutdown
Sage grouse habitat protections
Regulations on oil and gas drilling in some national parks
Oil rig safety regulations
Regulations for offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels
Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge
Hunting method regulations in Alaska
Requirement for tracking emissions on federal highways
Emissions standards for trailers and glider kits
Limits on methane emissions on public lands
Permitting process for air-polluting plants
Use of birds in subsistence handicrafts
Coal dust rule
Haze rule for national parks
Review process for forest restoration projects

10 rollbacks are in limbo:
Wetland and tributary protections
Methane emission limits at new oil and gas wells
Limits on landfill emissions
Mercury emission limits for power plants
Hazardous chemical facility regulations
Groundwater protections for uranium mines
Efficiency standards for appliances
Efficiency standards for federal buildings
Rule helping consumers buy fuel-efficient tires
Aircraft emissions standards

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ersed.html


Make America Filthy Again!

Puts me in mind of what Doc Holliday says in Tombstone.

Quote:
A man like Ringo has a great empty hole through the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.


And what's worse is that is it far, far easier to destroy regulations than it is to reinstate them given the depth of the pockets of those who are affected in the two scenarios.

Pure scum. History will judge them in the harshest fashion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12619
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
Gary Cohn gone according to BBC breaking news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43311581

What a farce.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16209
Deadtigers wrote:
This will be an interesting week. I wonder who will leave the White House this week. I am betting on Cohn.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 41821
The Man Without Fear wrote:
Make America Filthy Again!

And what's worse is that is it far, far easier to destroy regulations than it is to reinstate them given the depth of the pockets of those who are affected in the two scenarios.

Pure scum. History will judge them in the harshest fashion.


Add to this the damage he is inflicting on the 4th estate, the judiciary, and America's standing in the world and the picture is grim indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 41821
The Man Without Fear wrote:
Gary Cohn gone according to BBC breaking news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43311581

What a farce.


Confirmed on CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gary-cohn- ... ouse-post/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 11733
Stormy Daniels is sueing Micahel "Says Who" Cohen, Trumps lawyer saying the NDA isn't valid because Trump never signed. Cohen has been harrasing her and making legal threats. And guess what? Theirs images and "property"!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1225
Location: Saint Paul
paddyor wrote:
Stormy Daniels is sueing Micahel "Says Who" Cohen, Trumps lawyer saying the NDA isn't valid because Trump never signed. Cohen has been harrasing her and making legal threats. And guess what? Theirs images and "property"!

Image


Michael "I'm a cünt" Cohen has also been whinging that he has yet to be reimbursed for the 130K he paid Stormy last year.
Pence is sitting on his hands.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1645
This is all just a nothing burger...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/us/p ... v=top-news


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1645
The very stable genius has a world-class memory:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/759197/ph ... -president


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73441 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1795 ... 1837  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CrazyIslander, de_Selby, fatcat, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, Lucius, Marshall Banana, Taranaki Snapper, Toddyno7 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group