Final Senate IC report

NorthwestFresh

HHusky said:

NorthwestFresh said:

RaceBannon said:

A notable flurry of activity?

Which “may not be resolved.”

I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus.

Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?

Not sure you knew this, but Burr is no fan of Trump, Krusty. Now go pick up @insinceredawg and @MontlakeBridgeTroll in your Clown Car.

SFGbob

HHusky said:

NorthwestFresh said:

RaceBannon said:

A notable flurry of activity?

Which “may not be resolved.”

I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus.

Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?

Containing some members that were part of the attempted coup.

UW_Doog_Bot

So much pressing.

RaceBannon

HHusky said:

NorthwestFresh said:

RaceBannon said:

A notable flurry of activity?

Which “may not be resolved.”

I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus.

Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?

what party?

doogie

sounds griM

HHusky

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

NorthwestFresh said:

RaceBannon said:

A notable flurry of activity?

Which “may not be resolved.”

I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus.

Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?

what party?

Daddy's.

HHusky

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

NorthwestFresh said:

RaceBannon said:

A notable flurry of activity?

Which “may not be resolved.”

I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus.

Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?

Containing some members that were part of the attempted coup.

That doesn't explain how the report was adopted by the committee, but you know that.

RaceBannon

So he's impeached?

SFGbob

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

NorthwestFresh said:

RaceBannon said:

A notable flurry of activity?

Which “may not be resolved.”

I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus.

Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?

Containing some members that were part of the attempted coup.

That doesn't explain how the report was adopted by the committee, but you know that.

No, the Tweet from Kim Strassel that I posted earlier that you didn't read explained how the report was adopted.

NorthwestFresh

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

NorthwestFresh said:

RaceBannon said:

A notable flurry of activity?

Which “may not be resolved.”

I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus.

Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?

Containing some members that were part of the attempted coup.

Burr was against Trump winning in 2016.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

NorthwestFresh said:

RaceBannon said:

A notable flurry of activity?

Which “may not be resolved.”

I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus.

Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?

Containing some members that were part of the attempted coup.

That doesn't explain how the report was adopted by the committee, but you know that.

No, the Tweet from Kim Strassel that I posted earlier that you didn't read explained how the report was adopted.

He didn’t even read his original copy/paste. He’s a big-time attorney though. Rich, too. All big-time west. Last lawyers fly commercial to red states during a pandemic and then drive hours to The Ozarks to make the big deals with rednecks.

HHusky

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

NorthwestFresh said:

RaceBannon said:

A notable flurry of activity?

Which “may not be resolved.”

I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus.

Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?

Containing some members that were part of the attempted coup.

That doesn't explain how the report was adopted by the committee, but you know that.

No, the Tweet from Kim Strassel that I posted earlier that you didn't read explained how the report was adopted.

If there is one thing I admire it is consistency, and the WSJ editorial staff has been a source of hard-right fringy takes for as long as I can remember.

SFGbob

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

NorthwestFresh said:

RaceBannon said:

A notable flurry of activity?

Which “may not be resolved.”

I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus.

Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?

Containing some members that were part of the attempted coup.

That doesn't explain how the report was adopted by the committee, but you know that.

No, the Tweet from Kim Strassel that I posted earlier that you didn't read explained how the report was adopted.

If there is one thing I admire it is consistency, and the WSJ editorial staff has been a source of hard-right fringy takes for as long as I can remember.

WSJ editorial staff got it complete right that the Dossier was phony and that there was no collusion with the Russians by Trump or his campaign and that there has been misconduct by the FBI and DOJ and spying on the Trump campaign. You were on the other side of all of these issues dumbass. When do you start to questioning just how wrong you got this entire story you fucking hack?

Love how you bag on the WSJ when you've got 4 years of egg on your fucking face regarding this story.

WestlinnDuck

Peggy Noonan resents that remark. WSJ has nevertrumpers and is open borders. At best it's big government conservatism which really isn't very conservative.

SFGbob

Hell the Dazzler was still claiming there was no prosecutorial misconduct in the Flynn case just a few months back. He swallowed hook line and sinker Schiff's response to the Nunes memo that we now know was complete garbage. He still had never said a fucking word about Hillary and the DNC's very real collusion with the Russians and he still believes that Trump really did collude with the Russians but somehow Bill Barr stopped Mueller and company from being able to provide the evidence in support of it.

But these aren't "fringy" takes by the Dazzler. These are hard-hitting, middle of the road, factual positions.

Sledog

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

From the documents produced by Cohen, the Committee became concerned that
multiple witnesses and/or their counsel could have been involved in or aware of Cohen's attempt
to mislead the Committee. Indeed, at least two witnesses (Donald Trump Jr. and Felix Sater)
could have known that Cohen's statement falsely represented material facts about negotiations
over a. deal for a Trump Tower Moscow.

The crack legal mind of the Dazzler has him this time.

A notably flurry of activity
immediately preceded Cohen's submission of his August written statement, and an additional
burst of communications surrounded his October 25, 2017 testimony. Based on the names of
counsel identified in the log, membership in the alleged JDA appeared to include, at least,
Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr.; the Trump Organization, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Paul
Manafort, the Trump Campaign, Keith Schiller, Hope Hicks, Michael Flynn, and Felix Sater.
However, the Committee was provided with no competent evidence to substantiate the JDA's ·
existence by Ryan or anyone else.

(U) Due to time and resource considerations, the Committee opted not to further pursue
its inquiry into potentially obstructive conduct under this alleged JDA umbrella. Doing so would
have likely required initiating litigation over subpoena compliance, a process that may not have
resolved in time to be of investigative value.

Are those illegally obtained conversations via the bogus wire tap? Fruit of the poison tree consuelo. Like your law diploma and bar card!

doogie

@HHusky bar card?

NorthwestFresh

doogie said:

Well he d

@HHusky bar card?

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

From the documents produced by Cohen, the Committee became concerned that
multiple witnesses and/or their counsel could have been involved in or aware of Cohen's attempt
to mislead the Committee. Indeed, at least two witnesses (Donald Trump Jr. and Felix Sater)
could have known that Cohen's statement falsely represented material facts about negotiations
over a. deal for a Trump Tower Moscow.

The crack legal mind of the Dazzler has him this time.

A notably flurry of activity
immediately preceded Cohen's submission of his August written statement, and an additional
burst of communications surrounded his October 25, 2017 testimony. Based on the names of
counsel identified in the log, membership in the alleged JDA appeared to include, at least,
Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr.; the Trump Organization, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Paul
Manafort, the Trump Campaign, Keith Schiller, Hope Hicks, Michael Flynn, and Felix Sater.
However, the Committee was provided with no competent evidence to substantiate the JDA's ·
existence by Ryan or anyone else.

(U) Due to time and resource considerations, the Committee opted not to further pursue
its inquiry into potentially obstructive conduct under this alleged JDA umbrella. Doing so would
have likely required initiating litigation over subpoena compliance, a process that may not have
resolved in time to be of investigative value.

Are those illegally obtained conversations via the bogus wire tap? Fruit of the poison tree consuelo. Like your law diploma and bar card!

“Could be” or “May have been” is Big Shot’s idea of facts.