Well there is some good news. From deep inside NYPD, the Jihadist SOB was not shot in the abdomen, he got the other head shot, to the "groin". Its about time someone was thinking properly.
I'm sure someone will object, saying its unnecessary deadly force or police brutality.
Update.
This gets curiouser and curiouser. Heard a specialist say the perp's name means Sword of Allah in Arabic. Turns out she was right. With a name like that he never should have been allowed in the US in the first place. So at least the NYPD took care of his sword.
Seems to be an illegal immigrant by way of an overstay on his "diversity" visa from 2010 and with expired identification. Safe bet that Sanctuary Cities are going to be front and center in the public convo shortly.
While I enjoy listening to Jon Stewart any time, I'm not seeing whatever point you were trying to make here.
And yes, you're missing mine as well. It isn't strictly speaking about the press, tho that's part of it; I'm trying to make a point about political tribalism and how it is blinding the public to real issues by keeping our attention focused on phony or over-hyped scandals.
That tribalism extends to the press. Is Fox News going to have a nightly segment on the deaths of 4 soldiers in Niger for the remainder of the Trump administration? Pretty doubtful. Would Rachel Maddow gleefully read Trump's tax returns on the air line by line if they arrived in an envelope with Russian postage hand-carried by Hillary Clinton? Very likely, and she would have done it during the election too.
But it's not limited to the press. Remember how the antiwar movement dissolved when GW Bush left office? The wars didn't end, just the protests over them. Black men kneeling during the national anthem is an insult to our troops and national identity that must be dealt with harshly, but celebrating a failed rebellion against that flag and country is a sacred part of our cultural heritage.
That's what I'm talking about.
OK, I thought for a minute there your seeing "symmetry" was a backhanded way of seeing both the Steele Dossier and the Trump, Jr. meeting in Trump tower with Natalia Veselnitskaya, Jared Kushner, Manafort, Rob Goldstone, Akhmetshin, et al. as potentially involving collusion with a foreign nation. As one conservative pundit pointed out,
In order to substantiate that claim, we’d need to know two things: first, that the Russians were using spy Christopher Steele as a thoroughfare for misinformation about Trump, and second, that the DNC and Hillary campaign knew it and paid for the report specifically for that reason. That’s a heavy lift, and there’s no evidence for either contention at this point.
A) We go through this over and over again. Someone presents something for consideration, its reasonable to attach the presenter to the item presented. If you don't share the view you presented, why did you put it up in the first place ?
I'm an omnivore, and my opinion can be swayed. I'm happy to look at or present various points of view - especially if they stir up the ants' nest. I don't believe everything I read, or post.
But, most importantly, it's a trend in discussion to attack the messenger: "I don't like that song." "Then you're an idiot." I say repeatedly: the topic is the song/politician/food/clothing/painting and it doesn't warrant a personal attack. I despair when I see it, and especially so when I'm guilty of it. We're better than that, or at least I hope to be.
Already know Hillary is dirty...so no surprises. My dollar bet is Obama comes out clean
I have developed a thought about Manafort and the Podesta Group over the weekend. I am thinking that Manafort was planted into the Trump campaign by the Clinton camp via discreet back channels to insure that Trump got the repub nomination in order to insure a Hillary win. Trump welcomed Manafort's arrival, but dumped him like a hot potato (much to Trump's credit) once his ties to Ukraine came out.
We long ago learned but ignored Ukraine lobbying on behalf of Hillary and the DNC during the campaign. Perhaps its one of the reasons that the DNC never let the FBI look at its servers after the hacking of them. That and other incriminating nuggets ...
Personally, A) I think Manafort was set up as a patsy to take the fall by the Dems and B) the Dems have more to fear from Manafort than does Trump.
Were you ever a referee for professional wrestling? The kinda guy who repeatedly fails to see the shenanigans going on right in front of him?
Or does 1 + 2 = 47 in your world? Like, every day?
I think you need to put your loyalty to Trump aside when you gather news. You're becoming scary. Just because Trump refuses to live in a fact-based reality doesn't mean that you have to imitate him.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
The views expressed in my post are less ludicrous than those who spout treason and impeachment when speaking of Trump. They get a pass though.
You omitted my disclaimer ... But all the preceding are just my own thoughts on the matter, and worthless in the big picture. I admitted conjecture and wishful thinking on my part, not that I take these thoughts to be true. Those parading treason and impeachment are deadly serious.
Trump has been under FBI investigation for a year and a half. We have seen nothing yet as a result. Collusion is not a crime. Yet we have seen actual money change hands regarding collusion on the Democrat side in the case of the Steele Dossier. Yet all Democrats who testified before Congress claimed they did not participate, fund or even have knowledge of any DNC involvement of the dossier. We now know this to be false. The FBI funded it as well and even presented it as factual evidence to Obama in his daily briefings. It apparently was the basis used for spying on and unmasking Trump officials in FISA warrants during the campaign. The FBI is refusing to release information requested by Congressional committees regarding their involvement with the Steele Dossier. How is that even happening ? The FBI refusing to cooperate with Congress ? That may be okay and reasonable in your world, but not mine.
I'm just scratching the surface. My little post was just to get some stuff out of my head and vent in the light of what I just mentioned here which is just plain bizarre at face value, let alone digging deeper. The farther this goes the creepier it gets. But we have yet to see any evidence of Trump's involvement in any of this that is claimed to be the basis for all of the investigations in the first place.
A) Wasn't me - was reporter sorting through info. It would be good to address the info instead of the person presenting the material. B) And, the other choice besides "uranium thing is an obvious distraction" isn't "naive & innocent." False dichotomy. She was First Lady and Secretary of State. Trying to label her "naive" won't find purchase.
A) We go through this over and over again. Someone presents something for consideration, its reasonable to attach the presenter to the item presented. If you don't share the view you presented, why did you put it up in the first place ?
B) Sarcasm on my part. Hillary is obviously neither naive or innocent. She is an attorney, an officer of the court. Ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse on her part for anything she does, although that is how she plays everything and has thus far skated.
Already know Hillary is dirty...so no surprises. My dollar bet is Obama comes out clean
I have developed a thought about Manafort and the Podesta Group over the weekend. I am thinking that Manafort was planted into the Trump campaign by the Clinton camp via discreet back channels to insure that Trump got the repub nomination in order to insure a Hillary win. Trump welcomed Manafort's arrival, but dumped him like a hot potato (much to Trump's credit) once his ties to Ukraine came out.
We long ago learned but ignored Ukraine lobbying on behalf of Hillary and the DNC during the campaign. Perhaps its one of the reasons that the DNC never let the FBI look at its servers after the hacking of them. That and other incriminating nuggets ...
Personally, A) I think Manafort was set up as a patsy to take the fall by the Dems and B) the Dems have more to fear from Manafort than does Trump.
Were you ever a referee for professional wrestling? The kinda guy who repeatedly fails to see the shenanigans going on right in front of him?
Or does 1 + 2 = 47 in your world? Like, every day?
I think you need to put your loyalty to Trump aside when you gather news. You're becoming scary. Just because Trump refuses to live in a fact-based reality doesn't mean that you have to imitate him.
You evidently have made up your mind on the matter. I'm still waiting to see how things play out.
Feel free to call it nothing. Deflective propaganda by Trump. Clinton is naive and innocent, pure as the driven snow.
Wasn't me - was reporter sorting through info. It would be good to address the info instead of the person presenting the material. And, the other choice besides "uranium thing is an obvious distraction" isn't "naive & innocent." False dichotomy. She was First Lady and Secretary of State. Trying to label her "naive" won't find purchase.
Already know Hillary is dirty...so no surprises. My dollar bet is Obama comes out clean.
I think that your dollar is safe.
I was being kinda glib in my statement at the end.
I have developed a thought about Manafort and the Podesta Group over the weekend. I am thinking that Manafort was planted into the Trump campaign by the Clinton camp via discreet back channels to insure that Trump got the repub nomination in order to insure a Hillary win. Trump welcomed Manafort's arrival, but dumped him like a hot potato (much to Trump's credit) once his ties to Ukraine came out.
We long ago learned but ignored Ukraine lobbying on behalf of Hillary and the DNC during the campaign. Perhaps its one of the reasons that the DNC never let the FBI look at its servers after the hacking of them. That and other incriminating nuggets ...
Personally, A) I think Manafort was set up as a patsy to take the fall by the Dems and B) the Dems have more to fear from Manafort than does Trump.
None of this was ever supposed to be exposed because Hillary was a sure thing to be elected and all of this would have been swept under the rug. They got cocky, being used to getting away with everything. Now it's the Deep State which is leading the defense of Hillary, Obama, et al.
But all the preceding are just my own thoughts on the matter, and worthless in the big picture.
Someday you should be the subject of a well funded study.
Already know Hillary is dirty...so no surprises. My dollar bet is Obama comes out clean.
I think that your dollar is safe.
I was being kinda glib in my statement at the end.
I have developed a thought about Manafort and the Podesta Group over the weekend. I am thinking that Manafort was planted into the Trump campaign by the Clinton camp via discreet back channels to insure that Trump got the repub nomination in order to insure a Hillary win. Trump welcomed Manafort's arrival, but dumped him like a hot potato (much to Trump's credit) once his ties to Ukraine came out.
We long ago learned but ignored Ukraine lobbying on behalf of Hillary and the DNC during the campaign. Perhaps its one of the reasons that the DNC never let the FBI look at its servers after the hacking of them. That and other incriminating nuggets ...
Personally, A) I think Manafort was set up as a patsy to take the fall by the Dems and B) the Dems have more to fear from Manafort than does Trump.
None of this was ever supposed to be exposed because Hillary was a sure thing to be elected and all of this would have been swept under the rug. They got cocky, being used to getting away with everything. Now it's the Deep State which is leading the defense of Hillary, Obama, et al.
But all the preceding are just my own thoughts on the matter, and worthless in the big picture.
In this indictment (of Manafort and Gates), the special counsel alleges that Company A and Company B knew full well what Manafort and Gates were doing in their lobbying, and conspired to keep the lobbying from being properly reported. If those are Podesta Group and Mercury, they should be very worried about being next on the indictment list for violations of the Foreign Agent and Registration Act (FARA). Sean Davis says that they appear to be the only two firms connected to Manafort:
If so, this raises very interesting questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Tony Podesta has run the Podesta Group for the most part since founding it with his brother John, but John ran the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2015-16 and served as Obama’s chief of staff between January 2014 and February 2015. Just how far did Manafort’s lobbying reach, and who exactly acted as its conduits?
Not to worry though, Democrats are immune from Mueller's investigation. Mueller is one of them and will protect them from indictment and all of its trappings. Mueller is up to his own eyeballs in Uranium One, so he is motivated to keep Hillary safe. Besides, Hillary lost so there is no good reason to investigate her even if she is guilty of any wrong doing.
Something I had to inform some of my clients back when I was doing some criminal defense work:
That other people may have been doing the same thing as you and may be just as guilty as you, but are not being prosecuted is not a defense.
