That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Who cares? They dug their own grave. Now they can crawl into it.Blackhawk wrote:Trump winning or Trump losing - I wonder which would be worse for the Republican party?
Near term, Trump losing. Mid/long term? Trump winning.Blackhawk wrote:Trump winning or Trump losing - I wonder which would be worse for the Republican party?
hepcat wrote:It's only an issue of simply semantics to those with an agenda. Like the conservative sites you frequently link to (or the white supremacy sites, which you've done on occasion). My link was to Fortune.com. Not exactly a left leaning institution.Rip wrote:It was $1.7B and semantics asidehepcat wrote:That's one way of looking at it. It's wrong, but it's certainly one way.Rip wrote: He isn't wrong, and it was a lot more than $400M.
Let's sum this up, shall we?
It wasn't a ransom. Period.
Benghazi wasn't a government conspiracy, nor was it the fault of one individual. Period.
There is no evidence of wide spread voter fraud. Period
Peddle your conspiracy theories on sites where they might believe you.
...like Townhall.com.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -payments/Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration’s secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has “pleaded the Fifth” Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.
In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.
The response from the attorney general’s office is “unacceptable” and provides evidence that Lynch has chosen to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” Rubio and Pompeo wrote on Friday in a follow-up letter to Lynch, according to a copy obtained by the Free Beacon.
The inquiry launched by the lawmakers is just one of several concurrent ongoing congressional probes aimed at unearthing a full accounting of the administration’s secret negotiations with Iran.
“It is frankly unacceptable that your department refuses to answer straightforward questions from the people’s elected representatives in Congress about an important national security issue,” the lawmakers wrote. “Your staff failed to address any of our questions, and instead provided a copy of public testimony and a lecture about the sensitivity of information associated with this issue.”
“As the United States’ chief law enforcement officer, it is outrageous that you would essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries,” they stated. “The actions of your department come at time when Iran continues to hold Americans hostage and unjustly sentence them to prison.”
Agreed. I thought that it had been clearly established that the correct answer was "I don't recall," and also that you trade *armaments* for hostages, not cash. Right?Rip wrote:hepcat wrote:It's only an issue of simply semantics to those with an agenda. Like the conservative sites you frequently link to (or the white supremacy sites, which you've done on occasion). My link was to Fortune.com. Not exactly a left leaning institution.Rip wrote:It was $1.7B and semantics asidehepcat wrote:That's one way of looking at it. It's wrong, but it's certainly one way.Rip wrote: He isn't wrong, and it was a lot more than $400M.
Let's sum this up, shall we?
It wasn't a ransom. Period.
Benghazi wasn't a government conspiracy, nor was it the fault of one individual. Period.
There is no evidence of wide spread voter fraud. Period
Peddle your conspiracy theories on sites where they might believe you.
...like Townhall.com.http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -payments/Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration’s secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has “pleaded the Fifth” Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.
In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.
The response from the attorney general’s office is “unacceptable” and provides evidence that Lynch has chosen to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” Rubio and Pompeo wrote on Friday in a follow-up letter to Lynch, according to a copy obtained by the Free Beacon.
The inquiry launched by the lawmakers is just one of several concurrent ongoing congressional probes aimed at unearthing a full accounting of the administration’s secret negotiations with Iran.
“It is frankly unacceptable that your department refuses to answer straightforward questions from the people’s elected representatives in Congress about an important national security issue,” the lawmakers wrote. “Your staff failed to address any of our questions, and instead provided a copy of public testimony and a lecture about the sensitivity of information associated with this issue.”
“As the United States’ chief law enforcement officer, it is outrageous that you would essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries,” they stated. “The actions of your department come at time when Iran continues to hold Americans hostage and unjustly sentence them to prison.”
Seems strange to take the 5th if you were just giving someone back money that was theirs all along and not in any way a ransom.
That's not what has been claimed (as far as I can tell). From the article, members of the appropriate House and Senate committee can review the documents, they just can't say anything about it.Isgrimnur wrote:Executive privilege.
"I know conspiracy stuff cold. But this is all 30 years of Dungeons & Dragons,” he said. “There’s stuff in there that’s just obviously fiction. I don’t mean absurd potential news. I mean, there’s no shred of believability. One of the nations that’s ‘paying for Hillary’s hitmen’ is the one Doctor Doom runs.”
tgb wrote:Now we know where Rip gets his information.
"I know conspiracy stuff cold. But this is all 30 years of Dungeons & Dragons,” he said. “There’s stuff in there that’s just obviously fiction. I don’t mean absurd potential news. I mean, there’s no shred of believability. One of the nations that’s ‘paying for Hillary’s hitmen’ is the one Doctor Doom runs.”
Trump losing because his voters will justifiably blame the RNC for lack of support, and just try to get those folks to vote Republican again after that.Blackhawk wrote:Trump winning or Trump losing - I wonder which would be worse for the Republican party?
Your commentary is insightful.Rip wrote:
Smutly wrote:
This is the crap that produces stupid Facebook posts. I've seen half a dozen posts from people on Facebook claiming that Lynch pleaded the 5th amendment, therefore she and the admin have done something illegal. The conservative clickbait sites all have headlines saying she did this, with the resultant implication.Rip wrote:Seems strange to take the 5th if you were just giving someone back money that was theirs all along and not in any way a ransom.
One less Mosin Nagant I guess. sigh
Lol. The best part is Drumpf will use it to donate to Clinton's foundation to buy favours after Clinton becomes president.Unagi wrote:$ucker !
There are only a couple of those here and they mostly get treated as adults.tjg_marantz wrote:We probably shouldn't lump in Conservatives with the idiot Trumpsters. I'm not sure what each branch should be called but there are plenty if Conservatives not voting for Trump. They do not deserve to be derided or mocked.
I think the tears are getting bigger. Today I saw that Biden blamed the economy on lazy women and the Clinton Foundation just bought $137M dollars of weapons scheduled for delivery mid-November.malchior wrote:The amount of junk flooding the conservative space being scooped up is ... ungreat. They've built a parallel derpiverse and we just get glimpses into the depths when Rip et al. rip a tear for us to view its insanity.
Actually, they do, because they allowed this to happen to their party. They've been selling what the Trumpsters have bought hook line and sinker for decades. They cultivated that base very, very well.tjg_marantz wrote:We probably shouldn't lump in Conservatives with the idiot Trumpsters. I'm not sure what each branch should be called but there are plenty if Conservatives not voting for Trump. They do not deserve to be derided or mocked.
Trump then instructed rally-goers to visit a nearby voting center and check to see if their first ballot had been counted, then, “they’ll void your old ballot, they’ll give you a new ballot.”
But according to Fox 31, Trump’s strategy might not be entirely permissible. Once a voting official has received a ballot, a voter cannot change their vote, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office. Whether a vote can be confirmed is unclear, but voiding a ballot does not seem to be an available process, though voters can request a replacement ballot. There is a website through which Colorado voters can check on the status of their ballot.
They weren't really republican before. They're alt right. They'll vote for anyone that tells 'em they have a right to be angry at everyone that doesn't look or think exactly like them, or that the government is their enemy... especially if it's being led by someone who doesn't look or think exactly like them, of course.em2nought wrote:Trump losing because his voters will justifiably blame the RNC for lack of support, and just try to get those folks to vote Republican again after that.Blackhawk wrote:Trump winning or Trump losing - I wonder which would be worse for the Republican party?
slate.com comments can be kinda amusingDefiant wrote:Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?
This spring, a group of computer scientists set out to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign. They found something they weren’t expecting.
A good read that offers circumstantial evidence, but no solid proof, that suggests that someone in Team Trump was talking to someone in Russia and trying to hide their communication.
The article is from Mother Jones, so not the most objective site. I have no idea about the quality of their investigative reporting.And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.
Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."
The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was "shock and horror." The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. "It's quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on," he says.
Yeah, turns out that $916 million loss that Trump evidently used to not pay taxes for ~ 20 years was less than legit, as analyzed by...Trump's tax lawyers at the time, who wrote a letter listing six different reasons why using the loss that way was probably not legal.