This coming from the person who fawns over a con-artist, fraud, grifter, flim-flam man every **** day.Termin8tor » 20 Feb 2020 2:47 pm » wrote:Why did you cut this out of my post, psycho? To hide the truth.Misty » 20 Feb 2020 2:11 pm » wrote:Blah, blah, blahTHE GAPING ASSHOLE SAID: But you lack the integrity to do anything other than lie, smear and spread propaganda.
You can't defend how your sources fawned over Avenatti? Of course not.
Deflect, psycho, deflect!
What a load of ****.Termin8tor » 20 Feb 2020 2:47 pm » wrote:Trump is far and away the best president since the great Ronald Reagan, and my sources fairly criticize him for his faults and fairly praise him for his successes.
Again with that ****?
Brainwashed rightwing MORONS always blame city governments for the GOP national policies that CAUSED those problems. It was REAGAN who went around the country giving speeches about not being a manufacturing economy anymore but rather a service economy and his administration gave TAX BREAKS for companies that would LEAVE the US for foreign countries. They OPPOSE all INVESTMENTS in America since their rhetoric is always belied by their actions cons SAY they love America but they REFUSE to invest in it them blame Dems when the CONSEQUENCES of their policies bear the fruit of decay and economic stagnation. Iwont even bother going into the rights ATTACKS on working class people unions and minimum wagesMisty » 20 Feb 2020 2:59 pm » wrote: Again with that ****?
I'm in a **** bad mood today, so don't try me.
Keep posting that ****, so I can suspend your ***.
Go ahead, try me.
Look who's talking, Mr. I've answered that many times in one of my very important threads which you refuse to read.Termin8tor » 20 Feb 2020 3:23 pm » wrote:Whines the psychopath who has dodged every question I've asked for years.Misty » 20 Feb 2020 2:57 pm » wrote:You never miss one of my posts or threads, so why are you ignoring this one?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=45311/45-grants-cle ... of-dollars
What's wrong?
Haven't Mark Levin or Laura Ingraham provided you with your talking points yet?
I would love for you to tell me why that woman deserves clemency.![]()
I can explain it to you over and over, but I can't make you understand it.Termin8tor » 20 Feb 2020 3:23 pm » wrote:I would love for you to explain why after you've accused Trump of committing many crimes in office why the Impeachment Clowns didn't mention one single crime in their bill.
Don't play dumb, or maybe you're not playing.Termin8tor » 20 Feb 2020 3:21 pm » wrote:Suspend me for what, accurately depicting Systemic Racism in the US?
Every **** day, it's the same **** over, and over and over, and over.Termin8tor » 20 Feb 2020 3:32 pm » wrote:More evasive **** that has nothing to do with my question.Misty » 20 Feb 2020 3:28 pm » wrote:I can explain it to you over and over, but I can't make you understand it.
Maybe Lindsey can.
If Trump committed crimes while president, the Impeachment Clowns absolutely, positively would have cited them in their Bill. They were desperate for material.
Why didn't they cite one single crime?
Run, Forrest, run!
I think he probably meant to say DEVOLVING into sycophantic lickspittles.Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney called out Republicans for being “a lot less interested” in deficits under President Trump than when former President Obama was in office, The Washington Post reported.
Mulvaney spoke at the Oxford Union and said that the GOP is “very interested in deficits when there is a Democrat in the White House,” according to audio from the speech obtained by the Post.
"The worst thing in the whole world is deficits when Barack Obama was the president,” he said.
“Then Donald Trump became president, and we’re a lot less interested as a party.”
The acting chief of staff then added he found the $1 trillion deficit in the Trump era “extraordinarily disturbing.”
But he added that neither political party cared about the deficit anymore, and the GOP is “evolving” since the president’s election.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/4837 ... nder-trump
And the other shoe has dropped.Misty » 19 Feb 2020 5:39 pm » wrote:
Trump Expected to Name Richard Grenell as Acting Head of Intelligence
The move would place a Trump loyalist atop the intelligence agencies long viewed skeptically by the White House.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/us/p ... Wfeoq7OYgL
So he is installing a sycophant with no intelligence experience (Richard Grenell) in order to hide intelligence from Congress.Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said.
Mr. Trump cited the presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who led the impeachment proceedings against him, as a particular irritant.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he has been tough on Russia and strengthened European security.
Some intelligence officials viewed the briefing as a tactical error, saying that had the official who delivered the conclusion spoken less pointedly or left it out, they would have avoided angering the Republicans.
That intelligence official, Shelby Pierson, is an aide to Mr. Maguire who has a reputation of delivering intelligence in somewhat blunt terms.
The president announced on Wednesday that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and long an aggressively vocal Trump supporter.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/p ... ogin-email

That's so **** stupid and dishonest, it hurts to read, even as a joke.Misty » 20 Feb 2020 6:16 pm » wrote:How FOX News TRUMP TV is spinning the story of Russia interfering in the 2020 election.
Science fact: a dog gets more information from sniffing another dog's *** than a human does from watching Fox News.
More evasive **** that has nothing to do with my question.Misty » 20 Feb 2020 3:28 pm » wrote:I would love for you to explain
why after you've accused Trump of committing many crimes in office why the Impeachment Clowns didn't mention one single crime in their bill.
I can explain it to you over and over, but I can't make you understand it.
Maybe Lindsey can.
Misty » 20 Feb 2020 2:59 pm » wrote:Again with that ****?
I'm in a **** bad mood today, so don't try me.
Keep posting that ****, so I can suspend your ***.
Go ahead, try me.
The leftist brownshirt can't answer questions, so she censors them.
Kash Patel....one of Nunes' cohorts.Termin8tor » 21 Feb 2020 7:49 am » wrote:Here's Trump's latest move to drain the Swamp.
This is huge.![]()
Many officials in Obama's corrupt intelligence agencies have been part of the anti-Trump Resistance, if not of the coup attempt against him.
No wonder those hacks are shrieking about Russian interference again.
BREAKING: Pro-Trump NSC Staffer Kash Patel Tapped to Serve as Senior Advisor to Grenell to “Clean House” at ODNI
That's not what the new prosecutor appointed to the case told the judge during the sentencing hearing.Termin8tor » 21 Feb 2020 1:07 pm » wrote:Roger Stone's sentence proves that AG Barr was right and trial prosecutors were wrong
Gregg Jarrett By Gregg Jarrett | Fox News
The prison sentence of more than three years imposed Thursday by a federal judge on Trump associate Roger Stone demonstrates that Attorney General William Barr was correct in his assessment that trial prosecutors were seeking an unduly punitive sentence.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/roger-s ... gg-jarrett
When U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson entered her courtroom Thursday to sentence Roger Stone, she was greeted by a Justice Department prosecutor who had not said a word in the trial of President Donald Trump’s longtime friend and confidant.
Hanging over the morning’s hearing was the tumult of the previous week, a stretch that saw Justice Department leaders intervene in Stone’s case to suggest a more lenient sentence than the more than seven-year prison term career prosecutors originally recommended.
The extraordinary move—coming just hours after Trump tweeted his objections to the original recommendation—undercut the career prosecutors, prompting all four of them to withdraw from the Stone’s case and one to resign from the Justice Department entirely.
So on Thursday, Jackson was met with the prosecutor who stepped in to fill the void: John Crabb, the acting chief leading the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington.
After calling him up to speak, Jackson was unsparing as she delved into the remarkable developments in Stone’s case.
“I fear that you know less about the case than just about everybody else in the courtroom,” she said, pointing to a recently hired defense lawyer for Stone as a possible exception.
Crabb immediately apologized, telling Jackson he wanted “to make clear to the court that this confusion was not made by the original trial team.”
The team, he said, had been authorized to suggest a sentence of between seven and nine years in prison, adding that the recommendation was made in “good faith.”
Crabb’s explanation effectively reiterated what senior Justice Department officials said last week: There was a “miscommunication” between the attorney general and U.S. attorney over the sentencing recommendation.
When Jackson pressed for details, asking whether he had been directed to write the second sentencing recommendation, Crabb demurred, saying he was “not at liberty” to discuss internal deliberations.
But he did seek to downplay allegations of political interference in the handling of Stone’s case.
“The Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to enforcing the law without fear, or favor, or political interference,” Crabb said.
Jackson noted the original sentencing recommendation was not withdrawn, and that both memos from the government were signed by the newly appointed acting U.S. attorney in Washington, Timothy Shea.
Jackson appeared vexed by the varying sentencing recommendations, asking Crabb to explain how she should consider the dueling suggestions.
And while the initial sentencing recommendation set in motion the dramatic events ahead of the hearing, Jackson emphasized she was never going to impose a sentence of between seven and nine years, saying such a prison term would be “greater than necessary.”
Entering Thursday’s proceedings, it was an open question whether—or how deeply— Jackson would seek to dive into the Justice Department’s maneuvering ahead of the hearing.
The intervention in Stone’s case drew widespread condemnation and invited suspicions of political interference in the criminal prosecution.
More than 2,000 former Justice Department lawyers signed a letter assailing the “interference in the fair administration of justice” and commending the four career prosecutors for standing up for the Justice Department’s independence.
Crabb on Thursday defended those original prosecutors in his remarks to Jackson.
“This prosecution was and this prosecution is righteous,” he said, an apparent rebuke to criticism made by some, including Trump, of the motivations of the original trial team.
Trump, who repeatedly railed against the special counsel investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia, has questioned the motivation behind Stone’s prosecution.
The president has seized on the participation of two prosecutors on Special Counsel Robert Mueller III’s team—Aaron Zelinsky and Adam Jed—and also trained his Twitter ire on Jackson as she has presided over several cases stemming from the Russia investigation.
Without naming Trump, Jackson spoke out against the president’s public commentary on Stone’s case, labeling it “entirely inappropriate” and declaring that “the court cannot be influenced by those comments.”
“The system, for good reasons, demands the responsibility falls to” a neutral party, Jackson said of sentencing.
“Not someone who has a long-standing friendship with the defendant, not someone whose political career was helped by the defendant.
And certainly not someone” involved in the underlying facts of the case.
Jackson sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison for lying to the House Intelligence Committee as part of its Russia probe, impeding its investigation and witness tampering.
But, following a string of pardons and commutations earlier this week, there is widespread speculation that Trump might soon pardon his longtime friend.
In extended, animated remarks leading up to her announcement of Stone’s sentence, Jackson said Stone’s penalty should transcend politics.
His crimes, she said, cut to the core of the Constitution and the institutions it created, including Congress and the judiciary.
She noted that Stone’s lying to Congress took place while the federal government was under Republican control, undermining his and others’ claims that the longtime GOP operative was a political target.
And in doing so, she echoed a line delivered by one of the original Stone prosecutors, Michael Marando, as he told Stone’s jury during closing arguments in November that the “truth still matters.”
“The truth still exists,” Jackson said Thursday. “The truth still matters.”
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ ... 0121143007
Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb is the 'hack' who signed the watered-down sentencing recommendation on behalf of the AG, you idiot.Termin8tor » 21 Feb 2020 1:52 pm » wrote:Yes, yet another act of betrayal by a Justice Dept hack who hopefully will be asked to resign or stuffed in some Justice Dept. closet.Misty » 21 Feb 2020 1:40 pm » wrote:That's not what the new prosecutor appointed to the case told the judge during the sentencing hearing.Termin8tor » 21 Feb 2020 1:07 pm » wrote:Your sources shrieked loudly about Trump and Barr destroying the rule of law about the ridiculous sentence recommended by those hack prosecutors.
If I recall, so did you.
Didn't you claim that was proof of ethical corruption and smear Barr?
Who was vindicated by the judge's ruling, psycho?
Roger Stone's sentence proves that AG Barr was right and trial prosecutors were wrong
She said she was leaning that way anyway.Termin8tor » 21 Feb 2020 1:52 pm » wrote:But the judge gave him less than half what Mueller's corrupt hacks first recommended.
Crabb defended them several times and said that they followed the sentencing guidelines.Termin8tor » 21 Feb 2020 1:52 pm » wrote:After misleading the Justice Dept.