Welcome to Thunderdome

Felonies are not felonies. No one got in trouble over Hillary's email server. No one got in trouble with Obama's website accepting foreign donations.

Felonies are for you and me, not them.

GORDON wrote: Felonies are not felonies. No one got in trouble over Hillary's email server. No one got in trouble with Obama's website accepting foreign donations.

Felonies are for you and me, not them.

While I agree with Catt, it's really, really fucking hard to ignore these points.

I'm so tired of watching the left and right scream at each other about shit they do themselves.

I'm pretty sure Clinton (Bill) would have been impeached over this 20 years ago.

Trump impeachment would be pretty good television, I'm guessing.

TheCatt wrote: I'm pretty sure Clinton (Bill) would have been impeached over this 20 years ago.

Absolutely. I brought up at lunch today that I think Clinton would be impeached based upon the #metoo movement if he was the current president.

TheCatt wrote: Trump impeachment would be pretty good television, I'm guessing.

I just want it all to be over. Let's get President Pence sworn in right now and move on with our lives.

Our political reality is worse than a Mexican soap opera.

Leisher wrote: Let's get President Pence sworn in right now and move on with our lives.

I mean, that's not exactly a win... but

Our political reality is worse than a Mexican soap opera.

I guess Pence would ratchet us down to American daytime soap

TheCatt wrote: I guess Pence would ratchet us down to American daytime soap

Right?

My Twitter feed is a hilarious hodgepodge of left wing people pointing out they need to remove Trump before he nominates a SCotUS justice. What exactly do they think is going to happen? The Dems then get to nominate someone? It remains open until after the next election?

No dumbfucks, President Pence will nominate someone farther right, or at least more religious, than Trump.

Trump:

Trump says Cohen "made the deal" and pleaded guilty to "two counts that aren't a crime," a reference to two campaign finance violations. Trump says he "watched a number of shows" and heard that "those two counts aren't even a crime."

Is it possible to plead guilty to something that isn't a crime?

TheCatt wrote: Is it possible to plead guilty to something that isn't a crime?

Yes.

In a court of law? I don't think so.

Pecker gets immunity.

Make no mistake, everyone is having a lot of fun writing about David Pecker today.

Hormel won't be backing Trump in the next election.

Leisher wrote: Pecker gets immunity.

Make no mistake, everyone is having a lot of fun writing about David Pecker today.

Hormel won't be backing Trump in the next election.

But more importantly

said pork export volume, sales, and profitability declined sharply in the quarter.

will that turn into lower bacon prices?

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote: I think the left is over estimating the importance of this. I suspect if we look at Trump's history, there's a pattern of his doing this sort of thing long before he intended to run for office. He's a crappy human being. He was a crappy human being before he ran for office. Most of the honest folk admit, at least to themselves, that he's a crappy human being.

Felonies are felonies. They were not felonies when he was a private person outside of running for office.

That's what I'm saying, though. It's going to be hard to prove he did this because he was running for office if he has a history of doing it when he wasn't running for office.

For instance, if a man is in real estate and sends his son a $100 dollar check on his birthday every year and has done so since he turned 18, then his son is elected mayor and he continues to send his son $100 on his birthday, it's going to be hard to prove that was a bribe.

Leisher wrote: Pecker gets immunity.

Can we please talk about David Pecker and the National Enquirer? His involvement here is currently two of the very top headline stories on CNN.

Point being, CNN is basically giving credibility to the National fucking Enquirer.

Pecker should not have squashed the stories on Trump. Democracy and markets need information.

If the Clintons hated those stories so much, why didn't they sue, I always wonder.

TheCatt wrote: Pecker should not have squashed the stories on Trump. Democracy and markets need information.

I agree 100%.

ALL stories should be researched and investigated thoroughly and then reported if found to be true.

Leisher wrote:

TheCatt wrote: Pecker should not have squashed the stories on Trump. Democracy and markets need information.

I agree 100%.

ALL stories should be researched and investigated thoroughly and then reported if found to be true.

Agreed. It's criminal that The Drudge Report had to release the Monica Lewinsky story after other media sources spiked it. Also the John Edwards story that wasn't being investigated at all. The Enquirer shouldn't be hiding stories. Media outlets on the left do it all the time. Wasn't there a tape of Obama pre-election of him speaking at a dinner of a Palestinian leader and the LA Times refused to release the tape or a transcript of it?

National Enquirer broke the Edwards story, but wouldn't run the Trump ones.

As for the Lewinsky story, it was on hold, it wasn't necessarily dead. But Drudge didn't have the same restraints on publishing, so he ran it. Newsweek was "still working on it," which is impossible to evaluate given what actually happened. It might have run either way.

Vince wrote: Wasn't there a tape of Obama pre-election of him speaking at a dinner of a Palestinian leader and the LA Times refused to release the tape or a transcript of it?

This was what I could find.

TheCatt wrote: National Enquirer broke the Edwards story, but wouldn't run the Trump ones.

As for the Lewinsky story, it was on hold, it wasn't necessarily dead. But Drudge didn't have the same restraints on publishing, so he ran it. Newsweek was "still working on it," which is impossible to evaluate given what actually happened. It might have run either way.

Vince wrote: Wasn't there a tape of Obama pre-election of him speaking at a dinner of a Palestinian leader and the LA Times refused to release the tape or a transcript of it?

This was what I could find.

We can say it was a different time, and it certainly was, but go back even to NBC and Dan Rather's Bush report which obviously SHOULD have been placed on hold until they did more work on it. These damaging stories that are prematurely released always seem to go one way, which is damaging for Republicans or conservatives. They can always release a correction later which will hardly get any attention. But a negative story against a Democrat is fact check eight ways to Sunday before they even hint at releasing it.

O swear Trump was saying g how great north Korea denuclearization was going like 2 weeks ago.

And talks are stopped due to lack of progress https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/politics ... index.html

I used to think that he was kind of foolish to take credit for things that could turn on a dime like this, but now I realize that no matter what happens neither side will move much.