Grandma knows who’s daddy in this instance and that losing trumps base could impact his reelection.
Grandma = Graham
Summery in March (SCO v 31)
- Thread starter Quipling
- Start date
Grandma = Graham
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 31,984
- Reaction score
- 11,774
I'd argue it's always been convenient to ditch Trump. You become a media hero once you attack him
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 15,459
- Reaction score
- 768
Keywords there in bold.
The Report will go to Congress first....AND THEN be sent to the White House....BOTH ON THE SAME DAY, I imagine.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 37,472
- Reaction score
- 17,317
I'm with Rand...
DOJ: MUELLER REPORT DETAILS IN 'WEEKS'...
THOUSANDS OF PAGES LONG?
PRESIDENT: Report 'could not have been better'...
50 Hollywood Stars Who Accused of Treason, Collusion...
CNN Zucker: No Regrets...
LIST: FALSE EXCLUSIVES...
Most embarrassing predictions...
Greenwald Rails Against Misinformation and Fear...
Maddow, Queen of collusion, won't let go...
RAND: Subpoena Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice...
Ex-campaign aide says FBI wanted him to wear wire...
DOJ: MUELLER REPORT DETAILS IN 'WEEKS'...
THOUSANDS OF PAGES LONG?
PRESIDENT: Report 'could not have been better'...
50 Hollywood Stars Who Accused of Treason, Collusion...
CNN Zucker: No Regrets...
LIST: FALSE EXCLUSIVES...
Most embarrassing predictions...
Greenwald Rails Against Misinformation and Fear...
Maddow, Queen of collusion, won't let go...
RAND: Subpoena Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice...
Ex-campaign aide says FBI wanted him to wear wire...
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2007
- Messages
- 38,263
- Reaction score
- 29,971
Maybe I'm stupid (stfu don't answer that) but does congress get the full, uncensored version of Mueller's report? Or do they get the edited version from the DOJ?
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 31,984
- Reaction score
- 11,774
Edited
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 15,459
- Reaction score
- 768
Just kidding, Ed.
And if by "edited version", you mean the version that redacts all the sensitive Grand Jury stuff, then yes.
That will be given to them and the White House from all indications.
A full, uncensored version will NEVER make the light of day here to either side.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 14,396
- Reaction score
- 8
The salt is real.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
This is also my current position. I could be wrong, though.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 14,396
- Reaction score
- 8
And LMAO @ the CT nutters ITT.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
The first female interviewed...her brain is broken.
Just think, that’s the average intelligence of a liberal.
At least our resident sherdog liberals can form a coherent sentence. Well, some of them.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2007
- Messages
- 38,263
- Reaction score
- 29,971
Just kidding, Ed.
Like of course us peons shouldn't get an unredacted version, but shouldn't we want our representatives in Congress to see the full thing? They are (supposedly) there to use their best judgement to make decisions based on what they think us, their constituents, would want. So both sides having the full report should be a part of that.
But of course I know that's not how any of this works.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 15,459
- Reaction score
- 768
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 15,459
- Reaction score
- 768
Like of course us peons shouldn't get an unredacted version, but shouldn't we want our representatives in Congress to see the full thing? They are (supposedly) there to use their best judgement to make decisions based on what they think us, their constituents, would want. So both sides having the full report should be a part of that.
But of course I know that's not how any of this works.
I get what you're saying but the RISK of someone leaking shit to the Media is too damn high to have Grand Jury stuff be exposed however unintentionally.
Having that part Redacted(and only that portion) will help protect sensitive information that is a National Security risk.
BTW, you shouldn't sell yourself or any of us short.
We are not Peons.
We are Sherdoggers....
....on second thought..... <{ByeHomer}>
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2018
- Messages
- 5,756
- Reaction score
- 2
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
Interviewer: What are your thoughts on how the media has reported on 'Russiagate'---the accusation that Russia has interfered in the 2016 election and might interfere in the 2020 election?
Noam Chomsky: I think it's so farcical that I barely even read the reports. It's a joke. I mean, if there was any interference by the Russians, it's essentially undetectable. There are careful analyses of what happened in the election. You can see how the money poured in, all sorts of things. There is no sign of any Russian effect. Furthermore, it was almost incredible from the beginning. What happened in the Senate and the House in 2016? Did the Russians interfere in the Senate elections? They went exactly the same way.
Furthermore, the whole thing is a bad joke for all sorts of reasons. For one thing, there are countries that do interfere in American elections---openly, publicly, and forcefully. One of them even sent its prime minister to address a joint session of Congress to attack the initiative being taken by the sitting president. Is that interference? That was Benjamin Netanyahu. That's only one part of it. That's large scale, massive interference. If any other country had done that, we'd have a huge scandal.
Furthermore, does the US interfere in elections? In Russia, for example? Yes, and proudly. In 1996, Clinton took pride in the fact that large-scale US interference in the Russian election swung it to his favorite, Boris Yeltsin. The US goes way beyond interfering it elections. It overthrows governments...I don't have to go through the history. So to talk about 'Russian interference' is simply a joke.
Furthermore, the whole discussion is completely beside the point. There is massive interference in US elections from the US corporate sector, who pretty much buy the elections. There is extensive research---Tom Ferguson's is by far the best, it's very extensive---which shows very convincingly that you can predict the outcome of an American election Congress and executive with remarkable precision simply by looking at the single variable of campaign funding. And that's just the beginning. Ferguson's analysis goes right through 2016. This goes back a long time, of course it has picked up a lot under the opening of the floodgates by the reactionary Supreme Court but it goes back to the 19th Century. Is that interference in elections? And that's the bare beginning. Since the 1970's, when the neoliberal assault began, the number of lobbyists in Congress has skyrocketed. A normal representative in Congress many spend several hours a day just talking to donors to try to get funds for the next election so he has a chance of running. Meanwhile, the lobbyists are meeting with his staff, bringing all their huge resources---which of course overwhelm the staff---and pretty much writing the legislation. Is that interference with elections? What's being discussed is not even a joke. The election system is deeply corrupt right at its core in many ways.
Interviewer: Do you believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government?
Noam Chomsky: I haven't the slightest idea and I don't care. If there's going to be collusion, I think we can guess what it is. Maybe he made some deal to have a Trump hotel put up in Moscow. Okay. That's corrupt. But it's the kind of corruption that unfortunately is all over the place.
Interviewer: But with the quid pro quo of the Russians...
Noam Chomsky: Of what? The quid pro quo is that he's increased military action on the Russian border, he's created a huge military expansion of the military budget aimed at Russia, he's pulled out of the INF treaty, which is a major threat to Russia. What's the quid pro quo?
Noam Chomsky: I think it's so farcical that I barely even read the reports. It's a joke. I mean, if there was any interference by the Russians, it's essentially undetectable. There are careful analyses of what happened in the election. You can see how the money poured in, all sorts of things. There is no sign of any Russian effect. Furthermore, it was almost incredible from the beginning. What happened in the Senate and the House in 2016? Did the Russians interfere in the Senate elections? They went exactly the same way.
Furthermore, the whole thing is a bad joke for all sorts of reasons. For one thing, there are countries that do interfere in American elections---openly, publicly, and forcefully. One of them even sent its prime minister to address a joint session of Congress to attack the initiative being taken by the sitting president. Is that interference? That was Benjamin Netanyahu. That's only one part of it. That's large scale, massive interference. If any other country had done that, we'd have a huge scandal.
Furthermore, does the US interfere in elections? In Russia, for example? Yes, and proudly. In 1996, Clinton took pride in the fact that large-scale US interference in the Russian election swung it to his favorite, Boris Yeltsin. The US goes way beyond interfering it elections. It overthrows governments...I don't have to go through the history. So to talk about 'Russian interference' is simply a joke.
Furthermore, the whole discussion is completely beside the point. There is massive interference in US elections from the US corporate sector, who pretty much buy the elections. There is extensive research---Tom Ferguson's is by far the best, it's very extensive---which shows very convincingly that you can predict the outcome of an American election Congress and executive with remarkable precision simply by looking at the single variable of campaign funding. And that's just the beginning. Ferguson's analysis goes right through 2016. This goes back a long time, of course it has picked up a lot under the opening of the floodgates by the reactionary Supreme Court but it goes back to the 19th Century. Is that interference in elections? And that's the bare beginning. Since the 1970's, when the neoliberal assault began, the number of lobbyists in Congress has skyrocketed. A normal representative in Congress many spend several hours a day just talking to donors to try to get funds for the next election so he has a chance of running. Meanwhile, the lobbyists are meeting with his staff, bringing all their huge resources---which of course overwhelm the staff---and pretty much writing the legislation. Is that interference with elections? What's being discussed is not even a joke. The election system is deeply corrupt right at its core in many ways.
Interviewer: Do you believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government?
Noam Chomsky: I haven't the slightest idea and I don't care. If there's going to be collusion, I think we can guess what it is. Maybe he made some deal to have a Trump hotel put up in Moscow. Okay. That's corrupt. But it's the kind of corruption that unfortunately is all over the place.
Interviewer: But with the quid pro quo of the Russians...
Noam Chomsky: Of what? The quid pro quo is that he's increased military action on the Russian border, he's created a huge military expansion of the military budget aimed at Russia, he's pulled out of the INF treaty, which is a major threat to Russia. What's the quid pro quo?
