╌>

Hide and go leak

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  6 months ago  •  136 comments

Hide and go leak
"Biden could do that today. Why doesn't he do it today? I mean, he doesn't need any of this to secure the border. Trump secured the border with the exact same laws," Scott said.

Link to quote: Lankford cites 'election year' for waning GOP support on border bill: 'Not about letting 5000 people in a day' (yahoo.com)


The Senate is working on a bill that would supposedly secure the southern border, while unlocking funds for aid to the Ukraine and Israel. Sadly, it is politics at its worst. The game they are playing is called "hide and go leak." The name was given to the deal by a Fox anchor. The way it works is that the dealmakers, Schumer & McConnell, would hide the text of the deal from the public and Senate members until the last minute, while leaking only certain provisions of the deal to satisfy critics. 


 Senator James Langford of Oklahoma has been the chief negotiator on the Republican side. He has drawn considerable criticism from fellow Republicans. It seems that he wants us to believe that Joe Biden will follow the provisions of a Senate deal after ignoring the laws of the United States. Under a provision of the bill, Biden would not be compelled to close the border unless a threshold number of about 5,000 migrants passed into the US in a single day.

Lankford, under fire from the Oklahoma GOP as well over the border bill, appeared on "Fox News Sunday," where he defended the package said to have something akin to a Title 42 power that would allow everyone at the border to be turned away. Last week,  Cruz blasted the Republican compromise,  however, saying it still afforded about 6 million people – or two-thirds of the 9.6 million illegal border crossings under President Biden – to illegally enter and stay. He further argued the actual text language of the legislation was being kept a secret.

Lankford cites 'election year' for waning GOP support on border bill: 'Not about letting 5000 people in a day' (yahoo.com)


As for the idea that we could ever trust Biden and Mayorkas to observe immigration laws or secure the border, we have 3 years of proof that they will not. The worst thing that could happen is that provisions would be included to prevent a new president, such as Donald Trump from securing the border.


In other news:

Qatar, representing Egypt, Israel, the US and most likely those we don't know about is proposing a six week pause in fighting so that Hamas can "exchange hostages" with Israel.

Future First, the main super PAC supporting Joe Biden is allocating $250 million for advertising in the battleground states.

A former IRS contractor accused of leaking Donald Trump's tax returns to the New York Times got a minimal 5-year prison sentence.

president Joe Biden is still in a quandary about what to do about the attack that killed 3 US service member and wounded about 40 others.





Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    6 months ago

Good morning

OIP.MVclruU74Q3l16ZLTamQXAHaHa?w=204&h=204&c=7&r=0&o=5&pid=1.7

It is also another day closer to a Mayorkas impeachment.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 months ago

You are probably the biggest Jonathan Turley fan on Newstalkers.  Turley told Fox News there is no "cognizable" basis for impeaching Mayorkas. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    6 months ago

Can you show us the context of that?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    6 months ago

You figure out the "context"

Conservative pundit and legal scholar   Jonathan Turley   reiterated his belief this week that House Republicans lack sufficient evidence to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

“I don’t think they have established any of those basis for impeachment,” Turley said during an appearance Monday morning on Fox News, where he is also a regular contributor for legal affairs. “The fact is, impeachment is not for being a bad Cabinet member or even a bad person. It is a very narrow standard.”

“I just don’t believe that they have a cognizable basis here for impeachment,” Turley said, noting lawmakers and constitutional experts have long warned about the weaponization of impeachment against government officials for political purposes.

Turley says there’s no ‘cognizable basis’ for Republicans to impeach Mayorkas | The Hill
 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    6 months ago

Democrats made impeachment political. There doesn't need to be a "basis" for it.

Mayorkas lying repeatedly to Congress- and willfully failing to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws as written is more than enough.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.3    6 months ago

Donald Trump tried to extort a foreign government into helping him achieve re-election by saying they were investigating trump's opponent. He not only should have been impeached , he should have been convicted and removed. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    6 months ago

Mayorkas will be impeached and deservedly so, but the blindly partisan and cowardly Senate Dems won't convict him for what amounts to treason

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.6  George  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.5    6 months ago

Maybe they should tie the impeachment vote to aid for Ukraine, it appears you have to bribe the pieces of shit to do the right thing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    6 months ago

I guess the context is there is now a bad impeachment standard in place.

That is too bad.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    6 months ago
Trump tried to extort a foreign government

No, he asked them to tell the truth.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    6 months ago

Say, it is that the very same Jonathon Turley liberals despise and argue how horrible he is when they don't agree with him--THAT Turley??

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 months ago

Impeachment of Mayorkas will probably make MAGA happy, but I dont see it winning them any undecided voters. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.2.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    6 months ago
but I dont see it winning them any undecided voters. 

I can agree with that. There are so many other more important issues that the House should be focusing on such as the budget. With this being an election year, how much time will the House actually spend in session to work on all these issues vs out on the campaign trail working for their re-election. IMO if they continue to waste time they will risk their re-election efforts.

But I can also see with the very narrow margin in the House that leadership is making all sorts of stupid deals to try to remain in power so are taking on these issues to keep the extreme right members happy.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.2.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.1    6 months ago
But I can also see with the very narrow margin in the House that leadership is making all sorts of stupid deals to try to remain in power so are taking on these issues to keep the extreme right members happy.

Not only keeping their extreme members happy but possibly positioning themselves for the onslaught of "Republicans won't vote on any bill because of Trump" narrative.  Seems Repubs will yell about Joe not doing anything and possibly if they can blame part of the crisis on Mayorkis and point that no one did anything about him.................

That is only conjecture about political games, who knows for sure.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.2.2    6 months ago

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.2.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.3    6 months ago

Same ole same ole.  No one wants to get anything done so they can blame the other party.  There is more positioning and game playing.  A party asks for the extreme (Is that why Schumer won't bring the house bill up for a vote) and the other party says no way.  Now we may see the senate proposal  (maybe says 5000 a day is OK) knowing the other side will not go along with it. And around and around we go.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    6 months ago
Impeachment of Mayorkas will probably make MAGA happy,

It will put a stain on his legacy, and it would be in that sense justice served.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.2.4    6 months ago
Same ole same ole. 

Only valid if you recognize that this is common to both parties.

Particularly disgusting is the kowtowing to Trump who, easy to believe, does not want immigration problems lessened while Biden is PotUS.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.2.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.6    6 months ago
Only valid if you recognize that this is common to both parties.

Thought that was clear when I stated "No one wants to get anything done so they can blame the other party."

Particularly disgusting is the kowtowing to Trump who, easy to believe, does not want immigration problems lessened while Biden is PotUS.

 That is assuming they are doing it because of Trump and not because they are honestly against it, want to continue negotiating on it, or are just playing the same ole same ole games.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.2.7    6 months ago
That is assuming they are doing it because of Trump and not because they are honestly against it, want to continue negotiating on it, or are just playing the same ole same ole games.

Which is what Romney has reported.   Romney expressed his disappointment that Senators who were going to support the legislation are now undecided due to Trump.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.2.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.8    6 months ago

"reading the reports and the fact that McConnel hasn't corrected them suggest" sounds like alot of conjecture.  I might have missed it but where did he say senators that were going to support the legislation (whatever it is, is it finalized?) are no longer going to because of Trump.  Which ones are doing that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    6 months ago
Impeachment of Mayorkas will probably make MAGA happy, but I dont see it winning them any undecided voters. 

AH.

Sounds like you don't understand the whole idea of impeachment, but I get that based off the last two impeachments.

Impeachment of Mayorkas isn't about votes, man, it is all about the shitty job he's doing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.3    6 months ago

I find everything the former 'president' says and does appalling and that's putting it mildly.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.8    6 months ago

Romney and Cheney are two of the very few republicans nowadays with a spine.

When will the rest grow one and remove their balls from the former 'president's' pockets?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.12    6 months ago

We need new blood in Congress.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.14  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.13    6 months ago

That is universally held belief across the political spectrum in America regarding other people's representatives, only...

Yet, we like our reps and reelect them all.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.2.9    6 months ago

But they MIGHT!!!!!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.2.9    6 months ago

He was not specific.   He is not going to name names.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.2.17  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.16    6 months ago

Where did he actually say "Senators who were going to support the legislation are now undecided due to Trump"? Did he mention how many?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.2.17    6 months ago

I did not quote Romney.   I summarized and gave a video.

Do your own research RdTC instead of playing pathetic games.

For example, read this:  

And watch the video included within.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.2.19  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.18    6 months ago

You summarized what Romney said by stating:"Romney expressed his disappointment that Senators who were going to support the legislation are now undecided due to Trump."  When you are asked where you got that from you deflect and pivot because your comment was bullshit . Then you complain about someone else playing a pathetic game. Sad

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
1.2.20  GregTx  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.12    6 months ago

Hmmm... What are your thoughts on Sinema and Manchin?..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.2.19    6 months ago

If you are going to attempt to engage in analysis, you need to do more than look for specific literal words — demanding a quote when none was ever indicated.   

It should be obvious to you that Romney, based on what he has stated (see, for example: ), holds that Trump has great influence over the GOP.  And when Trump makes his statements urging GOP senators to not vote for a bill, that this has an effect.   Romney's public complaints about Trump trying to pressure Congress is due to the fact that Romney knows that Trump's positions do indeed impact his colleagues.   If you follow Romney at all you would know this.    You are ill-informed about this matter.

To wit:

  • Romney's long-standing position is that Trump has an undue and damaging influence on his colleagues
  • Romney finds it appalling that Trump would use his influence to kill this immigration bill
  • He is appalled because he knows that Trump's words do influence his colleagues.

Since you did not read my link, I am going to make this real obvious:

Senior Senate Republicans are furious that Donald Trump may have killed an emerging bipartisan deal over the southern border, depriving them of a key legislative achievement on a pressing national priority and offering a preview of what’s to come with Trump as their likely presidential nominee.

In recent weeks, Trump has been lobbying Republicans both in private conversations and in public statements on social media to oppose the border compromise being delicately hashed out in the Senate, according to GOP sources familiar with the conversations – in part because he wants to campaign on the issue this November and doesn’t want President Joe Biden to score a victory in an area where he is politically vulnerable.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged in a private meeting on Wednesday that Trump’s animosity toward the yet-to-be-released border deal puts Republicans in a serious bind as they try to move forward on the already complex issue. For weeks, Republicans have been warning that Trump’s opposition could blow up the bipartisan proposal , but the admission from McConnell was particularly striking, given he has been a chief advocate for a border-Ukraine package.

Now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are grappling with the reality that most in the GOP are loathe to do anything that is seen as potentially undermining the former president .  And the prospects of a deal being scuttled before it has even been finalized has sparked tensions and confusion in the Senate GOP as they try to figure out if, and how, to proceed – even as McConnell made clear during party lunches Thursday that he remains firmly behind the effort to strike a deal, according to attendees.

Now in context of the above:

“I think the border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is … really appalling,” said GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, who has been an outspoken critic of Trump.

Continuing on:

He added, “But the reality is that, that we have a crisis at the border, the American people are suffering as a result of what’s happening at the border. And someone running for president not to try and get the problem solved. as opposed to saying, ‘hey, save that problem. Don’t solve it. Let me take credit for solving it later.’”

It’s an all-too-familiar dynamic for the Republicans who served while Trump was in office, where he could easily derail legislative action on Capitol Hill with the blast of a single tweet or stir up a new controversy that Republicans were forced to respond to. And with Trump now marching toward the presidential nomination, Republicans are once again bracing for life with him as the nominee .

Underscoring just how damaging Trump’s comments and campaign to kill the border deal have been in the Senate, one GOP senator on condition of background told CNN that without Trump, this deal would have had overwhelming support within the conference.

“This proposal would have had almost unanimous Republican support if it weren’t for Donald Trump,” the Republican senator said.

GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina – who has also been involved in the talks – said he didn’t know if anyone could convince Trump to not kill the deal . But he acknowledged that it would take some “courage” for members to be able to press ahead at this point in defiance of Trump – though Tillis argued it would ultimately be beneficial for Trump for them to pass a border security deal and help address the flow of migrants trying to enter the country.

“I think this is when members of the Senate have to show some courage and do something that at the end of the day will be very helpful for President Trump,” Tillis said.

Asked whether it was a mistake for Trump to be assailing this deal, Tillis said: “I’ll leave it to him to figure out how he needs to get into office. I hope you’ll leave it to some of us who would support that effort to give him the tools he needs to really manage the border and the abuse and the dangerous situation we have today.”

For his part, McConnell – who has had zero relationship with Trump since the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack – downplayed Trump’s opposition saying, “It’s not anything new,” and insisting they were not abandoning the talks.

“We’re still working,” McConnell said. “Trying to get an outcome.”

Sen. John Thune, the no. 2 Senate Republican, said the discussions have reached a critical moment but acknowledged they may need to turn to a “plan B.”

“If we can’t get there, then we’ll go to plan B,” Thune said. “But I think for now at least, there are still attempts being made to try and reach a conclusion that would satisfy a lot of Republicans.”

In the latest sign that the emerging border deal faces an uphill climb, a senior leadership aide to House GOP Leader Steve Scalise told a group of Senate Republican chiefs of staff on Thursday that it was dead on arrival in the House, according to a source familiar.

Senate Republicans on the fence about the proposal may be less inclined to back it , knowing it’s going nowhere in the House and knowing Trump wants a border deal killed.

Frustration reigned inside the Senate GOP on Thursday amid lingering confusion over the status of a deal.

While McConnell has said the talks are still proceeding, Young warned Republican leadership against pulling the plug before they’ve taken a thorough temperature check inside the conference, where a contingent of Republicans are still fighting for a deal.

“I think leadership needs to count noses before they make any impulsive decisions,” he said.

Pressed on whether it was realistic to pass a border deal with Trump opposing it, Young said: “It may be possible. Listen, I’m very much attuned to the political realities, but I think before you make these consequential decisions on behalf of this conference, you’ve got to consult with the conference.”

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has been openly critical of McConnell, said he was “puzzled” by the leader’s comments during the closed-door meeting on Wednesday, which was supposed to be focused on Ukraine.

“I mean, we were talking about funding for Ukraine and all of the sudden he brings up the border and then, again, lays out what I consider a pretty lame excuse, trying to shift blame to President Trump for, I would say, his failed negotiation, not James Lankford,” Johnson said. “James Lankford has worked his tail off. It’s McConnell that took away the leverage by not tying Ukraine funding to actually securing the border.”

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has made no secret of her frustration with Trump over the years, said members need to remember how big this moment is for the border and for Ukraine and put their own politics aside.

“I’m not giving up. This is not about Trump and this is not about me. This is about our country. This is about democracy around the world. This is about security for our own country and so let’s keep pushing to get this border deal,” she said. “Let’s stand by the commitments that we have made for our friends and our allies so that our word actually means something.”

This is the second time in six years Trump killed or was actively trying to kill a bipartisan immigration deal as it emerged . Back in 2018, Murkowski was part of bipartisan talks over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The bill got 54 votes in the Senate, but not enough to get it over the finish line.

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, one of the Democrats involved in the border talks, expressed frustration about Trump seeking to inject chaos into the situation.

“I think over the next 24 to 48 hours, they are going to make a decision as to whether they want to do this, or whether the forces surrounding Donald Trump – who want to keep chaos at the border – win ,” Murphy said. “So they have a decision to make. I hope they make that decision very quickly. We have an agreement that is 95% written and is ready to get to the floor if Republicans decide that they actually want to solve the problem.”

This is yet another of many treatments of this subject.   It is important to have a realistic understanding of political reality.   One should spend time getting informed and less time playing pointless, pathetic little games.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    6 months ago

The leaked deals can’t be possibly be accurate.  There’s no way any republican In senate could possibly think making the border weaker is an acceptable solution. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    6 months ago

If only we could read it!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    6 months ago

There are Republicans in the Senate that are long time Establishment buffoons. They are the same idiots that thought caving and signing a Democrat based budget was a good idea right before Republicans assumed control of the House.

They are more concerned with keeping donor money flowing; insider trading bonuses; and making sure their friends and family have access to high paying easy jobs from their cronies. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    6 months ago

I think you've got it.

As much as Mitch McConnell tries to portray the Senate as the more moderate, more deliberate body, it is simply the last vestige what the Senate once was. McConnell now simply goes along to get along.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.2  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    6 months ago

So, if Oklahoma's far far rightwing ulta conservative Senator Lankford is saying that his, the Senate's bill, gives the gop "everything we ever wanted" your out?

MAGA!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.2.2    6 months ago

What is in the bill?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.4  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.3    6 months ago

In the US Senate with bipartisan support!

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.5  George  replied to  JBB @2.2.4    6 months ago

Not what, where. And why hasn't that piece of worthless shit Chuck Schumer done anything with the house Bill? [deleted] Fuck you schumer and do your job.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.6  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.3    6 months ago

Read this a get back to us...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.7  JBB  replied to  George @2.2.5    6 months ago

Tell that to the gop senators who back it.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2.8  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @2.2.7    6 months ago

You mean the same Establishment POS Republican Senators that allowed a Democrat written budget to pass just before Republicans assumed control of the House?

Based on their track record we will pass.

Nothing is stopping Brandon from securing the border and enforcing our immigration laws as written right now. He doesn't need any new authority or money from Congress to do his damn job.

Democrats created this crisis- they can damn well do what it takes with what they have now to fix it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.2.4    6 months ago

I asked what is in it.

You don't know, do you?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.2.6    6 months ago

I can't read it without a subscription.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.2.7    6 months ago

I know the democrats who rejected HR 2

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.12  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.9    6 months ago

In it?

Everything the gop Senators ever wanted!

According to far rightwing Sen Lankford...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.2.12    6 months ago

Yet you can't show us?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.14  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.13    6 months ago

I did ^! You are locked in a denial bubble...

I've posted two links so you're floundering!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.2.14    6 months ago

You have not posted any link showing us what is in the bill.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.16  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.15    6 months ago

I am not going to play your juvenile game!

The Senate Bill has bipartisan support and gives the gop everything it wanted...

The MAGA oppose it because of Trump!

MAGA House. MAGA Senate is onboard...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.2.16    6 months ago

I see a bit of contradiction:


The MAGA oppose it because of Trump!

 MAGA Senate is onboard...


 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.2.16    6 months ago

The Senate Bill has bipartisan support and gives the gop everything it wanted...

did you type that with a straight face?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @2.2.14    6 months ago

The links within your link either get "404 Not Found" or "deleted" Try again.

404 — Page Not Found

We're sorry. The page you requested cannot be found.
The address may have been typed incorrectly or the page may have been moved during the recent redesign of our site.

Thank you.

Deletion notice

The document   Outline of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013   has been deleted.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.20  George  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.17    6 months ago

It's amazing how they know what is in a bill that hasn't been written or even published, they wouldn't be lying about it would they?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.21  JBB  replied to  George @2.2.20    6 months ago

The outline of the agreed bill is known...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  George @2.2.20    6 months ago
It's amazing how they know what is in a bill that hasn't been written or even published

Shades of Nancy Pelosi.................

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.23  George  replied to  JBB @2.2.21    6 months ago

Post a link! Here is an actual Bill that you can read! Where has that worthless piece of shit Schumer been?

Summary of H.R. 2: Secure the Border Act of 2023 - GovTrack.us

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.2.24  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @2.2.16    6 months ago
The Senate Bill has bipartisan support and gives the gop everything it wanted...

Are you suggesting you know what the GOP wants.  I guess you could if you read the Bill already passed by the GOP in the house.  Is that what is on the Senate bill?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.25  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.2.24    6 months ago

Does gop Oklahoma Senator Lankford know? Says he does...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.2.26  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @2.2.25    6 months ago

Did he say it was everything the gop wanted?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.2.27  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.8    6 months ago

A budget is supposed to be passed in Sept at the latest before the start of the fiscal year on 1 Oct. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  author  Vic Eldred    6 months ago

Rachel Maddow asks E. Jean Carroll what she's going to do with "Trump's money" to help "women's rights."

Carroll says she and Maddow will "go shopping, get completely new wardrobes, new shoes...Rachel, what do you want, penthouse?"

Her lawyer nervously says "that's a joke":





Here is a question for our readers:

Should a woman go to jail if it is proven that she falsely accused a man of rape ?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    6 months ago
Should a woman go to jail if it is proven that she falsely accused a man of rape ?

There is zero evidence that happened here. The only thing I see is blind partisanship from trump supporters with a dash of victim shaming. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    6 months ago
There is zero evidence that happened here.

There is zero evidence that she isn't lying. 

The only thing I see is blind partisanship from trump supporters with a dash of victim shaming. 

Something the TDS driven have been guilty of for the last 8 years and counting. It is getting rather old. Can't you all find something better to with your time; like open your homes and wallets to the millions of illegal immigrants Brandon has let into the country?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    6 months ago
There is zero evidence that she isn't lying.

The jury believes her argument.   That is it.   That is how our system works.

No surprise that Trump supporters will still try to defend Trump even after the resolution of two trials with two juries.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.2    6 months ago

There is no evidence she is telling the truth. No physical evidence and no witnesses to something that allegedly happened 30 some year ago. All it amounts to is an unverifiable "she said" to obviously biased juries. This is eerily similar to the accusations brought against Justice Kavanaugh

And how can we forget the accusations against Bubba Bill Clinton by several women at least two of which have accused him of rape. Hillary dismissed them as bimbos! And then there is the payoff to Paula Jones and that stained blue dress from the Oval Office blow job.

Deep denial and blind partisan by the left, as usual

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.3    6 months ago
There is no evidence she is telling the truth.

Well, Greg (and Just Jim), I am pretty sure a formal trial where the jury concurs is evidence (albeit not proof) that she was telling the truth.  

Deep denial and blind partisan by the left, as usual

An incredible declaration by someone who is denying a formal trial.

I will not be surprised if this exact same blindly partisan tactic reappears upon every trial that Trump loses.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.3    6 months ago

A witness at the trial said that E Jean Carroll called her on the day it happened and told her what had just happened. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1.6  afrayedknot  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.4    6 months ago

”I will not be surprised if this exact same blindly partisan tactic reappears upon every trial that Trump loses.”

And inexplicably, the chorus of criticism from the cultists will only get louder. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.3    6 months ago
And how can we forget the accusations against Bubba Bill Clinton by several women at least two of which have accused him of rape. Hillary dismissed them as bimbos! And then there is the payoff to Paula Jones and that stained blue dress from the Oval Office blow job.

Is this supposed to be supporting your pathetic defense of Trump?   Because Clinton was a womanizer, Trump is not???

That is some incredibly confused logic.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    6 months ago
There is zero evidence that happened here.

There is zero evidence that ANYTHING happened. 

My question stands.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.7    6 months ago

Trump's boasts don't prove whether he was a womanizer or not.

My comments in no way support Trump but show your propensity to accept uncorroborated statements about alleged events that happened decades ago, and simply point out your blind partisanship and flawed logic.

Oh, and by the way, your cleverly crafted taunts bordering on personal attacks show the weakness of your arguments. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.9    6 months ago
Trump's boasts don't prove whether he was a womanizer or not.

Not sure anyone has stated that that boasts alone make someone a womanizer.    It would certainly go against a claim of not being a womanizer.   Those boasts could indeed influence a jury.   But they are not proof and nobody has suggested they are proof.

My comments in no way support Trump but show your propensity to accept uncorroborated statements about alleged events that happened decades ago, and simply point out your blind partisanship and flawed logic.

Greg, are you aware that two trials were conducted and both juries sided with the plaintiff?   

You are feebly trying to defend Trump even after two formal trials have concluded.   

And bringing up Clinton's womanizing does not, in any way shape or form, imply that Trump is NOT a womanizer or that the verdict of liability was a travesty of justice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.8    6 months ago
My question stands.

Here, Vic, I will provide an answer:

Vic @ 3 ☞ Should a woman go to jail if it is proven that she falsely accused a man of rape ?

I believe a woman should be held legally accountable if determined in a court of law that she falsely accused a man of rape.    The consequences of that accountability would likely depend on the circumstances.   I do not think jail is appropriate, but a fine certainly would be.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.11    6 months ago

I think that question was for you a segue to this subject.

Now that you brought us here, let us get to the agreeable facts:

 What led to both Trump and Caroll to willingly retreat together to a department store dressing room?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.12    6 months ago
What led to both Trump and Caroll to willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room?

Off the top of my head I would say Carroll was flirting with him. 

"she was teasing me " is not a legal defense for sexual assault. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.13    6 months ago
Off the top of my head I would say Carroll was flirting with him. 

But nobody seems to know how they both supposedly agreed to do that.

Why did the sexual assault complaint come decades after the supposed act took place?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.12    6 months ago
What led to both Trump and Caroll to willingly retreat together to a department store dressing room?

I do not know.   Here is the story from her perspective:

Carroll recounted bumping into a younger Trump at the department store and agreeing to help him choose a present for a woman, when he allegedly led her to an unmonitored dressing room. “The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips,” she wrote. “I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again.” The struggle continues as Trump pins her against the wall and “jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.”

The truly horrendous part of the story comes next: “He opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.”

Do you have special inside information to share?

Or do you just want to retry the case to get a different outcome?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.15    6 months ago
I do not know. 

Shouldn't that part of the story been questioned?


when he allegedly led her to an unmonitored dressing room.

And she followed him right in. Why?


Do you have special inside information to share?

No, only questions for a woman with a story full of inconsistencies.


Or do you just want to retry the case to get a different outcome?

There is no other outcome for anyone named Trump.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.1.17  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.16    6 months ago

“Let us start with facts.

1) This thing about Trump trials has no relation to the topic.”

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.16    6 months ago
Shouldn't that part of the story been questioned?

What makes you think that was not addressed in the trial?

And she followed him right in. Why?

You did not read what I posted?   

No, only questions for a woman with a story full of inconsistencies.

Well, Vic, two juries disagree with your 'informed' analysis.

There is no other outcome for anyone named Trump.

Oh poor Trump ... such a victim ... never does anything wrong.   256     Give us all a break, Vic.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.19  JBB  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.17    6 months ago

"Thank You", someone had to say it...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    6 months ago

That's exactly what 'this' is Mr. Frost.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.7    6 months ago

It's also a deflection, why do some always default/deflect to the Clintons?

This isn't about the Clintons!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.12    6 months ago

"What led to both the former 'president' and Ms. Carroll to willingly retreat together to a department store dressing room?"

How can that be when the former 'president' stated at trial and many times before, and many times after, 

"THIS WOMAN, I DON'T KNOW HER, I NEVER MET HER.  I HAVE NO IDEA WHO SHE IS.

So, which is it?  He raped her?  Or "THIS WOMAN, I DON'T KNOW HER, I NEVER MET HER.  I HAVE NO IDEA WHO SHE IS.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.23  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.22    6 months ago

Has nothing to do with the question asked. It is asking the question as to how they "supposedly" were in a dressing room together according to her. You know, did she go willingly? Did he sneak up on her and if so, why no screaming or yelling for someone to help?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.23    6 months ago

Of course it does, so he obviously lied when he said he didn't rape her then "This woman, I don't know her, I never met her.  I have no idea who she is"

So, he lied when he said he didn't know the woman that he raped in the dressing room, right?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.25  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.24    6 months ago

Do you remember every acquaintance you came in contact with 30 years ago? And again, it doesn't answer the question of how they were in the room together in the first place. You know, her CLAIM  and basis about what happened and WHERE. 

So, he lied when he said he didn't know the woman that he raped in the dressing room, right?

Where did he mention "woman in the dressing room"? Your imagination I'm guessing.

"THIS WOMAN, I DON'T KNOW HER, I NEVER MET HER.  I HAVE NO IDEA WHO SHE IS.
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.25    6 months ago

So he raped her and lied about it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.26    6 months ago

by claiming that he never met her, didn't know her, had no idea who she was, yet raped her in the dressing room

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.25    6 months ago

I'd remember being raped, which is what the former 'president' did to Ms. Carroll in the dressing room.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.26    6 months ago

Or he didn't and she lied about it.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.30  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.27    6 months ago

You can't possibly know that for sure. You take her word for it and that of a bias jury.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.30    6 months ago
You take her word for it and that of a bias jury.

So it is your claim that both juries were biased?   That these people did not take their oaths seriously and chose to find Trump liable when they really did not believe he was?

Not that I am surprised by this crap.   The typical defense of Trump starts with denying the evidence.  Then it is denying the allegations.   Then it is a question of where is the indictment.   Then it is a claim that the indictment is politically motivated and without merit.   Then as trials complete the very predictable claim is that this was a travesty of justice.   The agents are all biased and dishonest ... the process is rigged.   

The unsupported, partisan denial is entirely predictable.   Evidence and arguments do not matter.   

Trump is an innocent 'victim' no matter what.  196

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.29    6 months ago

But he did, he is known for doing things like this, he did it to another woman on a plane - just put his hand up her skirt and grabbed her pussy and shoved his disgusting little fingers in her - and then claimed, like Ms. Carroll, that she wasn't his type and that he probably had never met her.

It's for sure!!!!!!!!!!!  We all know it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.31    6 months ago

It's the endless defense of the indefensible on top of everything else which is so mindblowing/boggling/stupefying

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.34  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.32    6 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.1.35  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.32    6 months ago

Penthouse forum the source?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    6 months ago

Try to remember Vic, both of these decisions we reached using a jury, not a judge. And before people start screaming about, "liberal juries", trump's lawyers helped pick those juries. Trump fucked around and found out, it's really that simple. Trump is a rapist, deal with it. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3.2    6 months ago
both of these decisions we reached using a jury,

A New York Trump hating jury. You could convict Trump of the JFK assassination there. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    6 months ago

Of course, every trial against Trump will be deemed a travesty of justice.   Trump has done no wrong, he is just a victim.    256

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.2    6 months ago

Let us know when we have some agreeable facts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.3    6 months ago

What is an "agreeable fact"?   That is not a common phrase.   

Do you mean a fact with which you personally agree?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.4    6 months ago

One that we can both agree IS a fact.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.2.6  afrayedknot  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.4    6 months ago

“What is an "agreeable fact"? “

Akin to an ‘alternate truth’. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @3.2.6    6 months ago

So, you say there are no facts?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.2.8  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.7    6 months ago

As in:

“There is zero evidence that ANYTHING happened.” ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.5    6 months ago
One that we can both agree IS a fact.

Oh, I see, you want me to withhold my comments until I can write something that you agree with.

Request denied.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @3.2.8    6 months ago

Let us start with facts.

1) This thing about Trump trials has no relation to the topic.

2) I submitted an article on the subject. That is where the discussion belongs.

3) In that article (entitled $83 Million?) are what I consider to be undeniable facts.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.9    6 months ago
you want me to withhold my comments until I can write something that you agree with.

I want you to admit to facts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.11    6 months ago

You are implying that I do not acknowledge facts.

I suspect the problem here is that you have your own special 'facts' and want others to simply agree with you.

Facts are determined by a preponderance of quality evidence and sound reasoning.   Your desires are not ipso facto facts.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.12    6 months ago

Facts should be acceptable to all sides.

For instance: Hillary Clinton destroying classified documents should a simple fact accepted by both of us.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.2.14  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    6 months ago

“Let us start with facts.

1) This thing about Trump trials has no relation to the topic.”

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.13    6 months ago
Hillary Clinton destroying classified documents should a simple fact accepted by both of us.

I have yet to see evidence that she intentionally destroyed classified documents.

Given the volume of emails in play, I would not be surprised if there were emails containing classified information that were destroyed.

Show me the evidence that she intentionally destroyed classified documents.

Comey:

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

I have no use for Hillary Clinton, Vic.   So your presumption that I would deny actual facts that go against her is yet another ill-conceived notion on your part.

I follow the evidence to where it leads.   Make your case.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.15    6 months ago
I have yet to see evidence that she intentionally destroyed classified documents.

Thank you TiG. That is exactly the problem.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.15    6 months ago

“We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server,” he continued. “While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.”

Did Hillary Clinton destroy evidence in 'wiping clean' her email server? - CSMonitor.com

I shouldn't have to post that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.17    6 months ago

A perfect illustration of you inventing your own facts.

Your link does not provide evidence of  "Hillary Clinton destroying classified documents"

And you ignored the link I gave you including Comey's statements.

As I noted, it is possible that classified information was within the emails she deleted.   So you offering a link that she destroyed emails does not add any information that I did not already note.   Again, it would not surprise me given the numbers involved.   But there is a difference between the probability that classified information was deleted and sound evidence that classified documents were deleted.

And the notion of intent is critical here.   So the evidence should be "Hillary Clinton intentionally destroying classified documents"

What you have provided just further explains how you come to some of your conclusions.   Mere conjecture is elevated to evidence if it goes the way you wish and statements from the head of the investigation at the time are ignored.

Good grief, Vic, do you really think this is persuasive to rational adults?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.4    6 months ago

Maybe it's the equivalent of the "alternative facts" that we see so often on NT?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.20  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.11    6 months ago

"I want you to admit to facts."

TiG does that all time.

We're still waiting on other folks on NT to admit to facts.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.7    6 months ago

You are not supplying any facts,

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.13    6 months ago
Facts should be acceptable to all sides.

Ridiculous. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.23  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.22    6 months ago

Trump claimed his Trump Tower apartment was 30,000 square feet.  He was not "agreeable" to the facts of the matter. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.2.24  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    6 months ago
A New York Trump hating jury.

So tell us, which members of the jury hated trump because.. "New York"?  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.2.25  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.13    6 months ago
Hillary Clinton

CDS! 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.2.26  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.3    6 months ago

Let us know when we have some agreeable facts.

Sure, lets start with how you know for a fact the jury hated trump? 

We'll wait. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.27  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3.2.26    5 months ago

What did Letitia James run on?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    6 months ago

“Let us start with facts.

1) This thing about Trump trials has no relation to the topic.”

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    6 months ago

I especially love what Ms. Carroll said here about the former 'president'

"He's nothing.  He's like a walrus snorting, in court, "a rhino flopping his little hands"

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4  Ronin2    6 months ago
Try to remember Vic, both of these decisions we reached using a jury, not a judge. 

A jury in a district that voted 80 or 90 percent for Brandon. With a leftist judge that wouldn't allow Trump's attorneys to present evidence on his behalf- and tried to restrict him from making a closing argument.

And before people start screaming about, "liberal juries", trump's lawyers helped pick those juries. 

Picking from a TDS driven jury pool. I am sure the prosecution made sure all of the Conservatives- however few there were from the pool- were left off of the jury.

You are leaving out the caveat that this was the first use of a recently passed law by New York- that allowed rape accusers to sue their victims well after the statute of limitations had worn out. Guess who the first target was? Awfully damn convenient wasn't it. The victim has accused several other men of raping her- yet she only went after Trump.

 Trump fucked around and found out, it's really that simple. Trump is a rapist, deal with it. 

Democrats fucking around with the law will find out quickly enough- when the law no longer applies to everyone; it will apply to no one. Democrats/leftists will be screaming the loudest when that day comes.

Also, learn the difference between a civil case and an actual charge. She didn't have to present any evidence- just a claim- one she couldn't even nail down the exact year it happened; and changed her story multiple times. If Trump were actually guilty of rape he would be in prison. What he is guilty of is beating the Queen Bitch for the presidency in 2016. Democrats/leftists have never recovered from it.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5  Nerm_L    6 months ago

The deal on immigration is called H.R.2 - Secure the Border Act of 2023.  The House passed the bill an moved it to the Senate last May.  If Schumer tables the House bill because he doesn't like it then why can't Mike Johnson do the same?  Oh, that's right, the unbiased liberal press has lied about the truth again.  For Democrats equity must be built upon falsehoods; the truth cannot stand.

And the truth is what the Senate is negotiating means Biden doesn't have to do anything about the border.  The limits are set so high that they're meaningless.  How will Biden handle the continued streams of buses to New York and Chicago?  Biden'll lie about it just like he is doing now.  The Senate has fallen back on the stale, old, obsolete neoliberal practice of negotiating to achieve nothing.  That's how shysters, shirkers, and skimmers do things.  Ronald Reagan would be so proud.  And Newt Gingrich has renewed status with the unbiased liberal press.

This whole charade is about Biden giving money to his pet Soviet.  Obama screwed the poochsky in Kiev, Biden got caught with his hand in the till, and the worthless Senate Republicans want to bring home the bacon.  Oink, oink, someone nominate Romney again.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  author  Vic Eldred    6 months ago

BTW if anyone is interested the Impeachment Hearing is on C-Span 3.

There you'll find democrat members trying to obstruct everything.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    6 months ago

Impeachment for what?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @6.1    6 months ago

... for not being a trump dick sucker like the republicans on the committee.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7  Kavika     6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 

Who is online










Sparty On


35 visitors