Trump / FBI / Russians

I'd bang both their moms too.

i know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this, but Melania doesn't really push my buttons. Neither does Brady's old lady.

not saying that they aren't attractive, just Not really my type.

i like em either really nerdy (glasses) or really slutty. Not much gray area in between lol

 

lol fair enough. I'm just saying...I'd tax that ass like a California Congressman.

 

I'm with you on Melania. I'll take any of the Trump daughters over her everyday of the week.

 

I still think Brady's chick may be a trannie

 

I never said I wouldn't hit it if I was single. God knows where I have been and what I have done.

 

I've banged way uglier and got the STD to prove it

 

Asians and big boobs for the win.

 

Not always.

 

This is the best thread ever.

and it proves that all it takes to get both sides to cross the aisle is an ugly chick

 

Rofl!!!!

 

Dry as the Mojave Desert.....

 

No way!! But Tom ....he is a tranny.

 

Wow...Bugs Bunny wife!!

 

Glad to see y’all making this thread great again...

Since sigmoney posted a shot of his girl...ahh j/k, carry on!

 

Well-written piece on Schiff in WSJ. It's reasoned, it's rational & justifiably it's incredulous that Schiff is still even permitted to run his mouth.

 

You just saved me thousands in psychiatrist appointments, Pump.

 

No self-respecting journalist is going to stop using a source because of an instruction from the White House. But the media question of the day is why members of the press corps aren’t deciding on their own to reject the source who seems to have been misleading them for years.

The Washington Post reports that the Trump communications team is urging media outlets to avoid booking House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), who has long claimed to have seen “more than circumstantial” evidence of Trump-Russia collusion but has never backed up his claim.

One might expect any reasonable person, journalist or not, to stop providing a platform to someone who had gone two full years without backing up a sensational claim. One might also expect a journalist to get especially angry about a gap of 24-months—and counting—between publication and corroboration. But Mr. Schiff is still enjoying generally respectful coverage, despite peddling a message which has become both discredited and incoherent in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller’s finding that there was no evidence of collusion.

Now the Washington Post reports:

“Undoubtedly there is collusion,” Schiff said in an interview this week, after Attorney General William P. Barr submitted a four-page letter to Congress summarizing key aspects of Mueller’s report.
The Post further quotes Mr. Schiff:

“We will continue to investigate the counterintelligence issues. That is, is the president or people around him compromised in any way by a hostile foreign power?”
What’s to investigate and why is he still posing the question, if he already has direct evidence showing—without a doubt—that the Trump team colluded with Russia?

The Post report exposes further the untenable nature of Mr. Schiff’s position:

Still, Schiff has taken steps to put the panel’s investigation on hold, pending the release of Mueller’s findings. On Monday, he announced that the committee had indefinitely postponed a planned hearing with Felix Sater, a former business associate of the president’s who was involved with the pursuit to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Schiff said the pause is temporary, adding that the intelligence panel might still uncover “deeply compromising” evidence in its counterintelligence investigation that falls outside the scope of Mueller’s criminal probe.
What could be more deeply compromising than the direct evidence Mr. Schiff claims to have discovered of a conspiracy with a hostile foreign power to rig an American election? And if Mr. Schiff actually has such evidence that our republic is a sham and a foreign agent is in the Oval Office, why on earth has he been sitting on it for two years and why would he now agree to delay disclosure even further?

Deceptions by officials with access to the relevant information are worse than those resulting from honest media coverage. Embarrassed Pulitzer winners can at least claim they were misled by their various anonymous sources into overplaying the story. And of course the embarrassment extends beyond the Pulitzer crowd. In May of last year, this column noted:

The Washington press corps has spent a few days being embarrassed about Michelle Wolf’s raunchy and mean-spirited presentation at Saturday’s annual dinner for the White House Correspondent’s Association. In the fullness of time, they may find it even more difficult to defend another part of the evening’s program.
Specifically, the association had awarded its annual prize for “excellence in presidential news coverage under deadline pressure” to Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein of CNN. The judges wrote:

These four journalists and a number of other CNN reporters broke the story that the intelligence community had briefed President Barack Obama and then-President elect Donald Trump that Russia had compromising information about Trump. The CNN team later reported that then-FBI Director James Comey personally briefed Trump about the dossier. Thanks to this CNN investigation, “the dossier” is now part of the lexicon. The depth of reporting demonstrated in these remarkable and important pieces, and the constant updates as new information continued to be uncovered showed breaking news reporting at its best.
Of course now the whole world knows how laughable it is to put “dossier” and “depth of reporting” in the same paragraph. And even at the time it should have raised eyebrows. This column noted:

In some quarters the award will be controversial not eventually but immediately for two reasons. The first is the judges’ decision to honor Carl Bernstein, who is among a group of non-doctors who occasionally appear on television to offer long distance diagnoses of the President’s mental health. This can reasonably be described as fake news. The other immediately controversial aspect of the award is that the judges selected the CNN gang for the prize and gave only an “honorable mention” to NBC’s Lester Holt for getting Donald Trump on tape explaining why he fired former FBI Director James Comey. Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump or Mr. Comey or whether special counsel Robert Mueller has a case, this was clearly a big scoop. As for the winning entry, what exactly was it? Barring some huge new revelation of Russian collusion from Mr. Mueller, it appears that CNN was duped into advancing a partisan attack on a duly-elected President.
Now we know that CNN was indeed duped into playing up the bogus dossier and the collusion story—and CNN was not alone. But at least the journalists can claim that without direct access to classified information, they had to rely on the words of others. Mr. Schiff has no such excuses. And the media should not accept any from him.

***

 

AOC seemed cute in the dancing vid but man... when those choppers come out... and speaking of our darling millennial socialist... 57-0 means you shouldn't have been on the playing field. Mitch is one hell of an operator.

 

The worm has turned