Crime Clinton Lawyer finally charged over Russia-gate hoax.

Back on topic, turns out that the same attorney being charged with fabricating evidence and lying about working for the Clinton campaign, Michael Sussman was ALSO the person responsible for hiring crowdstrike in order to hide the DNC servers from the FBI......seems legit.
 
If they actually supported those policies, they would pass them while they are in power. They support those policies ONLY when on the campaign trail then they don't pass them once elected.

Again, you're talking like a hack. Believe it or not, Manchin and, say, Warren are not the same person just because they're in the same party. That's again part of your tendency to dehumanize people you see as being in the other party.

Jimmy is a leftist because he doesn't let them off the hook for it.

But he lets, say, McConnell off the hook for not passing policy he claims to support. So clearly he's not driven by a *principled* belief that opposing safety-net expansion is bad. His belief is that it's bad if and only if it's a Democrat doing it, and if one Democrat does it, he sees it as them all doing it because he doesn't regard people outside his tribe as being individuals.

Are you pro-war, pro-coup, or pro-murder? I think I finally get where you're going with this point. Do you equate opposing US intervention or fabricated propaganda campaigns with defending rightist governments???

No. I equate lying to defend dictators who gas people as defending them. What coup, murder, or intervention do you even think I'm arguing for? None. But you are, in fact, defending actual murders because they're carried out by people you back.

You know, it is possible to both hate the taliban for their right-wing ideology without thinking that we need to be there forever, right?

WTF? Do you see me joining in the MSM and right attacking Biden for pulling out there? BTW, it's hilarious how you supposedly "anti-interventionists" flipped on that issue. Anti-interventionism isn't as strong as partisanship, I guess. :)

Wait a second....Are you arguing that a corporate right to censor at the behest of the state overrides the first amendment individual protection of freedom of speech??

Huh? No. I'm saying that the gov't doesn't have the right to shut down your website because Republicans don't like being criticized.

Nobody is advocating for social media companies to be shut down. They are arguing not to be censored on those platforms. Outside of Amazon, Google, and Apple who colluded to shut down Parlor, I haven't seen any large push to shut down the major platforms. While I STRONGLY disagree with many of the views that were professed on Parlor, they had a right to not be censored.

But you do want to censor FB (which is a major source of rightist propaganda, BTW, just not quite enough for hacks), Twitter, etc.

Maybe he agreed with that government in that instance, for example, disagreeing with the assassination of Soleimani or finding that sending Uighurs to reeducation camps isn't as bad as setting the whole middle east on fire and killing over a million people.

How convenient. He agrees that some repression is good, as long as Republicans and the international right support it. What do you call people who keep switching their principles based on who supports things?

As far as attacking the Democrats over the republicans.....the republicans didn't lie to me all campaign season to try to get my vote. They didn't pretend they had moved to the left and then back out once elected. The republicans policy ideas are mostly terrible, but they didn't shake my hand and then slap me in the face.

Neither did Democrats, of course, but that doesn't stop you from lying constantly about them, does it? I think it's pretty clear at this point that you don't care at all about policy. It's all just tribalism to you.

Serious question. Do you believe its possible to criticize the Democratic party from the left?? Or do you believe that since there is no current viable alternative to the left of the Democratic party, that we should all just lesser-of-two-evils ourselves into oblivian?.

Of course it is. It's just obviously insincere when you spend four years defending corruption and policy you say you oppose.
 
Again, you're talking like a hack. Believe it or not, Manchin and, say, Warren are not the same person just because they're in the same party. That's again part of your tendency to dehumanize people you see as being in the other party.

The Democrats are in power right now. If they can't keep their party in check to pass the policies they promised when they get in power that what good are they as a party. If they endorsed and ran a Republican-in-disguise who is always going to vote against them, why didn't they primary him out. They've made their tent so big that they literally can't do shit even when they have power. If they can't wrangle their own party when it comes to the president passing his campaign policies while having the political mandate, then they will ALWAYS be an impotent party unworthy of voting for.

But he lets, say, McConnell off the hook for not passing policy he claims to support. So clearly he's not driven by a *principled* belief that opposing safety-net expansion is bad. His belief is that it's bad if and only if it's a Democrat doing it, and if one Democrat does it, he sees it as them all doing it because he doesn't regard people outside his tribe as being individuals.

Leftists didnt vote for McConnell. McConnell didn't promise the left anything. The left has no leverage over McConell. How much of a difference would it make to McConnell if the left withheld their vote from him?

No. I equate lying to defend dictators who gas people as defending them. What coup, murder, or intervention do you even think I'm arguing for? None. But you are, in fact, defending actual murders because they're carried out by people you back.

Gas attack never happened. It was propaganda to justify attacks and the continued occupation of north east Syria. Do you believe we arent killing people in Syria? How much of a threat to the United States is Syria?

You are literally parroting a fabricated talking point used to justify our ILLEGAL occupation of Syrian land and the theft of Syrian resources while the Syrian people suffer. Congratulations!!

We were NOT invited to Syria; Congress has not declared war on Syria. That's about as illegal as it gets, and people are dying because of it. All for a country that poses us ZERO THREAT. You are a useful idiot for the Military Industrial Complex to keep raping our treasury. When we leave Syria, and the numbers come in on what was spent, you can bet it will be just like Afghanistan; the majority of the money would have been pilfered and defrauded by private defense contractors.

WTF? Do you see me joining in the MSM and right attacking Biden for pulling out there? BTW, it's hilarious how you supposedly "anti-interventionists" flipped on that issue. Anti-interventionism isn't as strong as partisanship, I guess. :)

90% of the actual leftists media applaud Biden for getting us out of Afghanistan. I dont know who youve been reading or watching, but they probably aren't actual leftists or are working for networks or papers sponsored by the military industrial complex, as most are.

Huh? No. I'm saying that the gov't doesn't have the right to shut down your website because Republicans don't like being criticized.

It was predominantly Democrats who were threatening to regulate or punish the big tech companies before they fell in line and started censoring views that they dont agree with. I don't remember anyone ever threatening to shut them down, although I think Warren was threatening to break them up until they fell in line and started censoring discussions and shadow-banning users.

But you do want to censor FB (which is a major source of rightist propaganda, BTW, just not quite enough for hacks), Twitter, etc.

Not me, buddy. I'm a free speech absolutist. If it is legal to say out loud, a user should be allowed to sue a platform for censoring their discussions. (no direct threats of violence or "fire" in a crowded movie theatre situations, as those are already both illegal)


How convenient. He agrees that some repression is good, as long as Republicans and the international right support it. What do you call people who keep switching their principles based on who supports things?

You still haven't given a specific example on this. I don't know what you are referring to. I just gave you examples of instances in which a principled leftist could see things being done well by either side of the political spectrum or by either political party because that particular action aligns with left values, even if the rest of their policies dont.

Neither did Democrats, of course, but that doesn't stop you from lying constantly about them, does it? I think it's pretty clear at this point that you don't care at all about policy. It's all just tribalism to you.

All I care about is policy. I would much rather be praising a party for enacting the policies I want that they campaigned on than constantly having to shit on them because of all the damn excuses of why they can never get anything they say done. If its not the republicans, its manchin and sinema, if its not them its the filibuster, if its not the filibuster, its the parliamentarian, and so on and so on. If they cant get manchin and sinema in line, say, by making them offers or threatening to have the DNC withhold funds, then why keep helping them when they run for office.

Its a little too convenient that they can pass reconciliation bills but always have an excuse why all the good stuff doesn't ever make it through; then in 2022, its right back to blaming all their failures on the republicans again while making huge concessions to the republican party.

Of course it is. It's just obviously insincere when you spend four years defending corruption and policy you say you oppose.

I've always spoken out against corruption. I've been speaking out against the campaign contribution system from the moment I got into politics. I've been speaking out for years that neither politicians nor their spouses or immediate family should be allowed to invest in stocks and then be allowed to have prior knowledge of bills and vote on bills that can directly affect those stock prices.

Sadly this is done on both sides of the aisle, which is how we ended up in the oligarchy we find ourselves in today. When they own both sides, no matter who wins, the people and workers lose.
 
Last edited:
Moronic? Didn't you support allowing him to get away with it?

What happened to your claim the fbi didn't falsify evidence?


PS - No, I was pretty unsupportive of Trump through the last year, and especially during his post election hissy fit.
 
The Democrats are in power right now. If they can't keep their party in check to pass the policies they promised when they get in power that what good are they as a party.

This is pure hackery, though. You're saying that if one single Democrat is bad, they all are. But for some reason, you don't apply the same logic to any other group. You're not making a good-faith effort to understand and accurately describe the situation; you're just looking for some flimsy pretext to justify your irrational partisanship.

If they endorsed and ran a Republican-in-disguise who is always going to vote against them, why didn't they primary him out.

Do you think a liberal Democrat would win Manchin's seat? Your logic is if Manchin opposes the rest of the party's agenda, all Democrats are bad, but if all Republicans also oppose the agenda, they're completely innocent. It's ridiculously dishonest hackery.

Leftists didnt vote for McConnell. McConnell didn't promise the left anything. The left has no leverage over McConell. How much of a difference would it make to McConnell if the left withheld their vote from him?

Therefore the left should support McConnell being in power? Again, it makes no sense if one takes your thinking at face value. It's only understandable as an expression of brainless partisanship.

90% of the actual leftists media applaud Biden for getting us out of Afghanistan. I dont know who youve been reading or watching, but they probably aren't actual leftists or are working for networks or papers sponsored by the military industrial complex, as most are.

Um, what about you? Dore? Greenwald? You're still saying that both parties are the same, FFS!

It was predominantly Democrats who were threatening to regulate or punish the big tech companies before they fell in line and started censoring views that they dont agree with. I don't remember anyone ever threatening to shut them down, although I think Warren was threatening to break them up until they fell in line and started censoring discussions and shadow-banning users.

Um, Trump wanted to ban Twitter for fact-checking him, and the party totally fell in line, pushing this ridiculous "platform/publisher" nonsense (apparently Republicans think that the First Amendment shouldn't apply to publishers now!).

Not me, buddy. I'm a free speech absolutist. If it is legal to say out loud, a user should be allowed to sue a platform for censoring their discussions. (no direct threats of violence or "fire" in a crowded movie theatre situations, as those are already both illegal)

I remember you saying that Twitter shouldn't be allowed to enforce its own rules as it sees fit. So make sure to add another exception. You don't believe in freedom of speech if speech upsets Republicans.

All I care about is policy.

And yet you claim there is no difference in the parties? WTF?

I've always spoken out against corruption.

Unless it comes from the right. Even after the Mueller report, you're still defending Trump.
 
What happened to your claim the fbi didn't falsify evidence?


PS - No, I was pretty unsupportive of Trump through the last year, and especially during his post election hissy fit.

Nothing happened to it. It's still there.

Your post history is still accessible, bob.
 
The Democrats are in power right now. If they can't keep their party in check to pass the policies they promised when they get in power that what good are they as a party. If they endorsed and ran a Republican-in-disguise who is always going to vote against them, why didn't they primary him out. They've made their tent so big that they literally can't do shit even when they have power. If they can't wrangle their own party when it comes to the president passing his campaign policies while having the political mandate, then they will ALWAYS be an impotent party unworthy of voting for.

This actually works well to illustrate the difference between a good-faith criticism and your approach (blatant hackery). A reasonable left-leaning person will criticize nutters on the left (say, advocates of the Green New Deal or Defund the Police types), right-wing Democrats like Manchin and Sinema, scumbags like Weiner, corrupt types like Gabbard, etc., while still maintaining their general views about what policy is best for the country. A hack will just say, "if anyone in the party is fucked up, they all are," and not put any real thought into it. "Derp derp, everyone not in my tribe is a monster." You're just knee-jerking tribalist bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Well, then every major news outlet says you're full of shit.

Ex-FBI lawyer who falsified document in Trump-Russia probe seeks to avoid prison
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/5...document-in-trump-russia-probe-seeks-to-avoid

No major outlet says I'm full of shit. And your link is to a story about one guy cutting corners on a bullshit technical thing. Put him in jail, but it doesn't have anything to do with the case or anything we're talking about. Or with the FBI as an institution doing anything improper.
 
^^^ "defending open corruption"

<WellThere>
<Y2JSmirk>

You just gotta love Jack when the veil slips.

"Guy cutting corners on technical bullshit."

This is the guy who routinely complains about the lack of intellectual discourse in here.
 
Don’t you get it? It’s a giant conspiracy that everyone is in on.
Yeah. Here's even another way to look at it. The OP is about a Trump-appointed special counsel, who claims this lawyer didn't disclose who he represented when he handed in a piece of information. The lawyer claims what he did isn't related to any client representation. Have any of our chuds, who ostensibly lament partisanship, expressed skepticism over this? Over the motivations? Over the veracity? Nope. Not a word. Some even wrote the lawyer should be jailed for life over it. They're ready for whatever Durham brings, hook, line and sinker. The only way they'd turn on him is if he doesn't properly smite their enemies.

So a Trump-appointed special counsel is completely OK in their view. But special counsel Robert Mueller, an extremely respected Republican, who got nominated 100-0 in the senate to lead the FBI, his legal team of all-stars, many of them Republicans, the Republican led bipartisan senate intel committee, The DNI, The CIA, The FBI, The NSA...all the prosecutors Mueller's team handed off info too, journalists from our largest and most respected media outlets...no, no, that's not good enough! Simply not enough evidence! And you're a partisan hack if you believe them! How gullible could you be!?!? Oh, also, I should mention, Dutch intel alerted the United States about Russia hacking the DNC. So add them in. Guess they're Deep State liberals too.
 
#blueAnons with their panties in a bunch cause they follow narratives that any one who isn't a fucking retard saw through years prior. Is normal
 
It's real!! The FBI just can't prove it! But it's totally real, everybody knows it!
 
This is pure hackery, though. You're saying that if one single Democrat is bad, they all are. But for some reason, you don't apply the same logic to any other group. You're not making a good-faith effort to understand and accurately describe the situation; you're just looking for some flimsy pretext to justify your irrational partisanship.

Hackery for who? I don't support either of the corrupt parties. You're the one being a partisan hack for the Dems. They can do no wrong in your book. Whether its paying Fusion GPS for a fabricated peepee dosier, lying to the FBI or hiding the servers so the FBI can't confirm their fabrications, you don't care. Its "go, blue team, GO!" Its the definition of partisan hackery.

Do you think a liberal Democrat would win Manchin's seat? Your logic is if Manchin opposes the rest of the party's agenda, all Democrats are bad, but if all Republicans also oppose the agenda, they're completely innocent. It's ridiculously dishonest hackery.

No. My logic is that if the democrats intentionally help an extreme right winger into their party because they dont think they can win based on the merits of their platform, they don't get to make excuses for being politically impotent when that guy always votes with republicans. They made their own bed; they are comfy in their blanket of excuses. If they wanted to get policy passed, they can either make specific concessions and deals that favor West Virginia to get it done or stop supporting his candidacy. Absent that, they don't actually care about passing the policies they campaigned on.

Once again, the Republicans are just as bad as the democrats; the difference is the democrats promised a lot of things that they dont deliver on. Joe Manchin is just the fall guy they use for public opinion while they conveniently dont pass any of the policy objectives that conflict with their donors interests. They are all bad because of that; Joe Manchin is just one of their many convenient excuses. If it wasn't him, it would be the parliamentarian. They don't actually care. They had the opportunity to pass the $15 minimum wage without Joe Manchin. All it would have taken was for Harris to overrule the parliamentarian and she chose not to because they honestly dont care about increasing the minimum wage; its just theater for the public.

Therefore the left should support McConnell being in power? Again, it makes no sense if one takes your thinking at face value. It's only understandable as an expression of brainless partisanship.

It doesnt matter who is actually in power. Progressive change will not happen because both parties are bought by interests that oppose it. Republicans in power - no progressive change. Then the dems use that to try and fear-monger voters into electing them. Then Democrats in power - no progressive change. It honestly doesn't make much difference which party controls the government; neither party is willing or able to pass the most popular policies the American people want - because neither of them actually want to.

That's not partisanship; they both suck. Partisanship would be always advocating and voting for one side even though they cant get anything done. Partisanship is making excuses for one sides impotence and defending them for not doing what they say they're going to do.

Um, what about you? Dore? Greenwald? You're still saying that both parties are the same, FFS!

When it comes to progressive policies, the outcome of electing either party IS the same. Neither party makes any progressive changes when they are in power.

How are the democrats treating refugees at the border right now? Why isn't AOC down there crying for the cameras? How's the illegal occupation of Syria going? Why are we trying to do regime change in Ethiopia right now? Why are we drone striking Somalia, Syria and Iraq?

Both parties are pro-illegal wars of offense. Neither party passes progressive agendas even though one party pretends to support them during campaign season. Both parties take bribes from the same large corporate interests. Everything else is just pro-wrestling style public theater.

Um, Trump wanted to ban Twitter for fact-checking him, and the party totally fell in line, pushing this ridiculous "platform/publisher" nonsense (apparently Republicans think that the First Amendment shouldn't apply to publishers now!).

Twitter is a Platform, not a Publisher. Their job is to host a conversation, not to interrupt it. They literally get blanket legal immunity from liability for their content specifically because it is understood that they are not the publisher. Imagine you were on a phone call and every time you said something that the phone company disagreed with, a bot would interrupt your call and tell you the phone company's official position on the matter. That's not how phone companies or platforms are supposed to operate. They exist to facilitate discourse, not to manipulate it.

If they want to edit like a publisher, then they should be considered publishers and be legally responsible for everything published on their platform. Barring that, they should know their place and stay the fuck out of other people's conversations.

I remember you saying that Twitter shouldn't be allowed to enforce its own rules as it sees fit. So make sure to add another exception. You don't believe in freedom of speech if speech upsets Republicans.

Completely braindead take right here. Freedom of speech is an individual right. Such an important one in fact that it is protected by the very first amendment to the constitution, which bars state interference in matters of speech.

This might be difficult for you to understand, but corporations aren't human beings; they are inanimate. Corporations cant talk.

This comes back once again to all the hearings the tech giants kept getting summoned to on capitol hill. The democrats kept threatening them to censor their platforms of face regulation. They didn't want to, but complied under threat of the government. There is no practical difference between state censorship and private censorship at the behest of the state. Its immoral to anyone with principles in line with freedom and constitutional freedoms.

But look at all the partisan hacks. "They're a private company; they can do as they please!" When did liberals become so pro-corporate power??? Oh, that's right! It was the second those corporations started taking power and using it to forward the democrat agenda.

I oppose excessive corporate power because I have principles. It's bad whether it suits republicans or democrats because it in some way diminishes the power of the individual.

And yet you claim there is no difference in the parties? WTF?

When it comes to policy outcomes, it doesn't matter who is in power. Both parties answer to the same corporate overlords at this point. I'd like to vote for the anti-war party that invests in educating its people, talking care of the poor and eliminating extreme wealth and power disaprities......oh, wait. We don't have one of those as an option.

Biden is basically carrying out most of the same foreign policy and border policy as Trump did, he just isn't being crucified by the Democratic party or the MSM because they are all partisan hacks.

Unless it comes from the right. Even after the Mueller report, you're still defending Trump.

Are you talking about the report that found insufficient evidence for the russiagate conspiracy theory? The one that was based on a fake peepee tape dosier paid for by the clinton campaign as opposition research?

Not defending anything Trump actually said or did, but i dont think he was being blackmailed by the Russian government. He was harder on the Russian government than the Obama administration. Russiagate was a hoax.

There were a million things Trump could have been RIGHTFULLY impeached for, like violating the emolument clause. But democrats would rather make things up than impeach him for corruption because its corruption they engage in aswell.
 
Last edited:
Even when it comes out that both sides are rotten to the core and corruption is rampant, americans are still riding their coattails for all that they are worth, defending their "heroes" with tooth and nail.

But the other side.......Orange man......Clinton crime family......dementia joe.....

It would be hystericly funny if american politics werent impacting the rest of the world. Now its just sad.
 
Edit: Delete; double post
 
Last edited:
I don't even know if it's legitimately a delusion, as much as just outright denialism. Like Sartre on antisemites:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
it fits like a glove, doesn't it? There are some True Believers, like Second Sight is the Bamboo Ballot thread. That dude is shot.

Many, however, are just using the playbook from this quote.
 
@HOLA These guys wouldn't believe it if Putin himself said he was involved. They are so enlightened and can see things others can't that they are blinded by their own egos. These are the type of people who would choose a dictator over democracy because the guy they like says the things they want to hear. They don't care about the truth as is obvious.
Donald Jr. released the "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" emails on his own Twitter account, acknowledging their legitimacy, and they still called it fake news.

"Fake news" should not be used as a synonym for "accurate but negative" news, especially by people who are self-proclaimed truth-seekers, repulsed by partisanship.
 
Back
Top