Trump looses again

[wmLambert]

If things do not go my way, it is not because I am wrong, it is the other guys fault. All of the evidence points to my being wrong but my ego will not allow me to admit that.

Y'know what's funny about your post? You meant it as an ironic jab at Trump - but it was totally true because you applied it to yourself.

Biden is beside himself because his numbers are below Trump's - no matter how hard the media tries to force it.

[msquared]

That's right, if the decision is something you don't like, they were evil/corrupt.

[wmLambert]

When he heard that Michael Sussmann was acquitted of lying to the FBI, which supposedly caused him to be illegally surveilled, Trump reacted with his usual equanimity:

Our Legal System is CORRUPT, our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised or just plain scared, our Borders are OPEN, our Elections are Rigged, Inflation is RAMPANT, gas prices and food costs are “through the roof,” our Military “Leadership” is Woke, our Country is going to HELL, and Michael Sussmann is not guilty. How’s everything else doing? Enjoy your day!!!

He sounds like one of those angry old men from The Villages who chases kids off his lawn.  Did Trump recently move from Mar-A-Lago? 

How timely. Biden was just described last night, that way. In reaction to his whining about his staff cleaning up his messes, he was described as an old man chasing kids off his lawn.

In Trump's defense. We all know Sussman was instrumental in Hillary's plan to overthrow a legally elect6ed President. In lieu of a coup d'etat, she settled for sedition and treason. We also know the proceedings with a corrupt judge who should have recused himself and a Sussman-friendly DC jury reached an incorrect verdict.

[msquared]

We all do not know that. We trust in the system. That is one of Trump's greatest crimes against America, undermining the trust in the system. For Trump, if things do not go his way, it is not that he is wrong, it is that the system is corrupt.  He has poisoned American's beliefs in ourselves for his own personal gain.

[yossarian22c]

...
In Trump's defense. We all know Sussman was instrumental in Hillary's plan to overthrow a legally elect6ed President. In lieu of a coup d'etat, she settled for sedition and treason. We also know the proceedings with a corrupt judge who should have recused himself and a Sussman-friendly DC jury reached an incorrect verdict.

You have to quit using "we all know" to describe your private evidence free opinions that are shared by no one here.

[TheDrake]

...
In Trump's defense. We all know Sussman was instrumental in Hillary's plan to overthrow a legally elect6ed President. In lieu of a coup d'etat, she settled for sedition and treason. We also know the proceedings with a corrupt judge who should have recused himself and a Sussman-friendly DC jury reached an incorrect verdict.

You have to quit using "we all know" to describe your private evidence free opinions that are shared by no one here.

It's the royal 'we'?

[wmLambert]

...
In Trump's defense. We all know Sussman was instrumental in Hillary's plan to overthrow a legally elect6ed President. In lieu of a coup d'etat, she settled for sedition and treason. We also know the proceedings with a corrupt judge who should have recused himself and a Sussman-friendly DC jury reached an incorrect verdict.

You have to quit using "we all know" to describe your private evidence free opinions that are shared by no one here.

It's the royal 'we'?

On the contrary. It is generally known by the majority of the people what has happened here. Trump was railroaded by Hillary and the Democrats, including the left-leaning Democrat apologists here in this forum. By any honest person, one cannot deny that the Russian collusion was made up out of whole cloth by Hillary and her people, and then abetted by the Clinton-aligned staff in the top floors of Justice. There is no longer any argument of that. The plan is how to outlast the guilt - not to plead innocence.

Hillary's people, including the judge in Sussman's case, want to believe that Sussman was not working on Hillary's behalf for claiming a non-existent Trump link to Alfabank, which he then billed for. Then they want to claim that Sussman did not get the go-ahead by Hillary to do so, even though we have the testimony from her own chief of staff that she did so. Weasels will waffle and say it was an innocent mistake that lasted two-and-a-half years and cost the country millions of dollars, several unsubstantiated impeachments, and systematic blocking of everything Trump was trying to accomplish. This has been called, by the best historians (not just the Clinton apologists) as the single worst example of political malfeasance, and failed coup d'etat, in the history of the country - yet it is still being defended in this forum.

Where are the heartfelt apologies?

[msquared]

William has both CDS and ODS.

[yossarian22c]

...
On the contrary. It is generally known by the majority of the people what has happened here. Trump was railroaded by Hillary and the Democrats, including the left-leaning Democrat apologists here in this forum. By any honest person, one cannot deny that the Russian collusion was made up out of whole cloth by Hillary and her people, and then abetted by the Clinton-aligned staff in the top floors of Justice. There is no longer any argument of that. The plan is how to outlast the guilt - not to plead innocence.

Russia hacked the DNC and leaked emails. Trump's campaign manager and son met with people claiming to have dirt on Clinton from Russia. It wasn't made up out of whole clothe.

Hillary's people, including the judge in Sussman's case, want to believe that Sussman was not working on Hillary's behalf for claiming a non-existent Trump link to Alfabank, which he then billed for. Then they want to claim that Sussman did not get the go-ahead by Hillary to do so, even though we have the testimony from her own chief of staff that she did so.

The judge didn't find him not guilty that was the jury. I guess in your world they are all "Hillary's people" too?

Weasels will waffle and say it was an innocent mistake that lasted two-and-a-half years and cost the country millions of dollars, several unsubstantiated impeachments, and systematic blocking of everything Trump was trying to accomplish. This has been called, by the best historians (not just the Clinton apologists) as the single worst example of political malfeasance, and failed coup d'etat, in the history of the country - yet it is still being defended in this forum.

Where are the heartfelt apologies?

Who are the "best historians"?

Neither impeachment had anything to do with the Muller investigation. Why do you think they are related?

[wmLambert]

...
On the contrary. It is generally known by the majority of the people what has happened here. Trump was railroaded by Hillary and the Democrats, including the left-leaning Democrat apologists here in this forum. By any honest person, one cannot deny that the Russian collusion was made up out of whole cloth by Hillary and her people, and then abetted by the Clinton-aligned staff in the top floors of Justice. There is no longer any argument of that. The plan is how to outlast the guilt - not to plead innocence.

Russia hacked the DNC and leaked emails. Trump's campaign manager and son met with people claiming to have dirt on Clinton from Russia. It wasn't made up out of whole clothe.

No. People met with Trump's son claiming some unannounced pertinent info. When they did not do what they said they would, the meeting was cut short with all the Trump people wondering what the Hell these people were doing wasting their time. It was Hillary's people who worked with and paid for Russian made-up info they could try to use against Trump. All that stuff was found to be lies and disinformation. Take the time to educate yourself on what is now known - not what the complicit media pedaled four years ago.

Hillary's people, including the judge in Sussman's case, want to believe that Sussman was not working on Hillary's behalf for claiming a non-existent Trump link to Alfabank, which he then billed for. Then they want to claim that Sussman did not get the go-ahead by Hillary to do so, even though we have the testimony from her own chief of staff that she did so.

The judge didn't find him not guilty that was the jury. I guess in your world they are all "Hillary's people" too?

Again, Clinton apologist POV. The Judge and many in the jury were directly connected to Hillary and Sussman. We know Sussman did what was proven. The Jury tried to equate their unfounded lenience with Sussman skating when Durham nailed him.

dollars, several unsubstantiated impeachments, and systematic blocking of everything Trump was trying to accomplish. This has been called, by the best historians (not just the Clinton apologists) as the single worst example of political malfeasance, and failed coup d'etat, in the history of the country - yet it is still being defended in this forum.

Where are the heartfelt apologies?

Who are the "best historians"?

Neither impeachment had anything to do with the Muller investigation. Why do you think they are related?

Evidently, the historians that are honest and unbiased. The Impeachments were not caused by any action by Trump - only alleged misconduct which has been completely found to be erroneous. Mueller spent millions and basically exonerated Trump of all made-up charges.

Still waiting for the heartfelt apologies. You are just embarrassing yourselves. You do know your words are going to be out there for years as more and more disinformation that you cling to will be even more firmly debunked.

[yossarian22c]

The judge didn't find him not guilty that was the jury. I guess in your world they are all "Hillary's people" too?

Again, Clinton apologist POV. The Judge and many in the jury were directly connected to Hillary and Sussman. We know Sussman did what was proven. The Jury tried to equate their unfounded lenience with Sussman skating when Durham nailed him.

The Jury is connected to Sussman?!? Beyond the fact no one knows who is on the jury, you just made the case for Durham being the most inept prosecutor in history. You have to ask yourself why you believe such things. What evidence convinced you the jury had ties to the defendant. That is an extraordinary claim. Needs some evidence, unless you just mean some members of the jury were democrats.

[yossarian22c]

Who are the "best historians"?

Neither impeachment had anything to do with the Muller investigation. Why do you think they are related?

Evidently, the historians that are honest and unbiased. The Impeachments were not caused by any action by Trump - only alleged misconduct which has been completely found to be erroneous. Mueller spent millions and basically exonerated Trump of all made-up charges.

Still waiting for the heartfelt apologies. You are just embarrassing yourselves. You do know your words are going to be out there for years as more and more disinformation that you cling to will be even more firmly debunked.

Can you name one of these historians, so I can know who is the best?

Do you realize neither impeachment had anything to do with the Mueller investigation? Extorting Ukraine and January 6th. Those are the reasons for the impeachments.

[wmLambert]

Who are the "best historians"?

Neither impeachment had anything to do with the Muller investigation. Why do you think they are related?

Evidently, the historians that are honest and unbiased. The Impeachments were not caused by any action by Trump - only alleged misconduct which has been completely found to be erroneous. Mueller spent millions and basically exonerated Trump of all made-up charges.

Still waiting for the heartfelt apologies. You are just embarrassing yourselves. You do know your words are going to be out there for years as more and more disinformation that you cling to will be even more firmly debunked.

Can you name one of these historians, so I can know who is the best?

Do you realize neither impeachment had anything to do with the Mueller investigation? Extorting Ukraine and January 6th. Those are the reasons for the impeachments.

You've got to be kidding. One impeachment was for threatening The Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden - who we all know now was a very compromised individual., and whose father lied about it. The other one was for Jan 6, blaming him for the legal demonstration that got compromised when Pelosi's security invited and ushered people into the Capital Building. One protestor was killed by one of Pelosi's security, but no protestor hurt anyone, although Pelosi and Schumer lied about a policeman being hit by a fire extinguisher and killed. The incursion into the Capital was legal because we have videos of officers ushering and inviting them into it. The Doctrine of Laches says that made all incursions legal. There is more evidence for false actors trying to "dirty-up" the march than any Trump-supporter getting out of line.

The Ukraine was the stated reason for the first Impeachment, and Mueller was the factor that attacked his image for both. Unfounded accusations were factored in because Trump was believed to be dirty when he wasn't. Video showed Trump telling protestors to be safe and legal, yet the unfounded accusations produced a party-line verdict. Both impeachments will be lifted before too long. It was just more of the sedition and treason the Democrats exhibited.

[msquared]

Once again William is proving my point.  Any proceeding that does not go Trump's way was not because he was wrong but because it was corrupt. This is Trump's most dangerous poison to American Society. Time and  time again Trump loses, even in front of Trump and Republican appointed judges and he still claims that it was rigged against him.

This one thing is the most evil thing Trump has done against the American Dream.

[wmLambert]

...The Jury is connected to Sussman?!? Beyond the fact no one knows who is on the jury, you just made the case for Durham being the most inept prosecutor in history. You have to ask yourself why you believe such things. What evidence convinced you the jury had ties to the defendant. That is an extraordinary claim. Needs some evidence, unless you just mean some members of the jury were democrats.

No, you made the case for being ignorant of more than your Left-leaning, Never-Trumper doctrinal pejorative spin.

Just so you know, like those of us who have followed more than your disinformation, before the case was brought Durham had acknowledged that since Sussmann had to be tried in DC, the jury would probably be anti-Trump. The Law said Sussmann had to be tried in the city where the crime was committed, so that meant in DC. DC is 91% Democrat, and the prosecution is only allowed six disqualifications, while the defense gets ten - which wiped out any jurists with a chance of being impartial. Judge Cooper is a deeply embedded Democrat, appointed by Obama and connected to the party. He was married by Merrick Garland, and his wife represented Lisa Page. He admitted he worked with Sussmann in the DOJ. Cooper disallowed the most flagrant conflicts which should not need a challenge. He let in the mother of a player on Sussmann's daughter's team, and anyone who donated to Hillary. Durham assumed the fix was in here, but addressed this by stating his next indictments will not be heard in DC.

[wmLambert]

Once again William is proving my point.  Any proceeding that does not go Trump's way was not because he was wrong but because it was corrupt. This is Trump's most dangerous poison to American Society. Time and  time again Trump loses, even in front of Trump and Republican appointed judges and he still claims that it was rigged against him.

This one thing is the most evil thing Trump has done against the American Dream.

Once again, msquared proves his inability to think without his Leftist blinders on. Anyone who resists his bullying and narcissistic attacks is evil. Why didn't he address Christopher Cooper's refusal to recuse himself as a Democrat (Hillary) apologist? Almost any good GOP judge would have done so to avoid the appearance of impropriety. To a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat functionary, the ends always justifies the means.

It's sad, not funny that Trump is the one politician supporting the American Dream - yet msquared is 180° out of whack. As I pointed out earlier, Trump has won over and over again - in spite of everything the seditious Democrats have done

[TheDrake]

QAnon tears of frustration

Follow the twisted logic. If Sussman had been convicted, then that meant the FBI was acting in good faith so he threw the case in order to target the FBI for knowing Sussman was working for Hillary.

Not all the WWG1WGA crowd is satisfied with that explanation as to why Durham failed.

As for the judge? You know that Durham didn't push for his recusal. Must have been part of his master plan to lose on purpose. Meanwhile, no information on what he did to supposedly influence the trial. No complaints about ruling evidence in or out, no complaints about witness handling, no unusual jury instructions. But I'm not surprised your upset, wm, when you believe that just knowing a democrat means you're incorrigibly biased. Every Obama and Clinton appointee is amoral trying to sway the outcome of every case to advance their nefarious cause.

[msquared]

Here is the difference.  I am not a Hillary supporter.  I could not care less if she is charged, tried, found guilty and goes to jail for a crime she committed.  However, it has been 3 years and the best they could find is that 1 lawyer who represented her, and other clients, may have lied to the FBI (now found innocent of the charge).

Wm, you and your group would throw then all in jail with out a trial. Trump's own words "lock her up".  Trump has poisoned you against the system.  Like I said that is his greatest sin.

I am not a democrat. I am a good Republican but not a Trumpist. But Trump has brought out the worst side of the conservative movement. Racism, bigotry, hatred.  I do not hate Trump. I pity him.  I hate what he has done to the Party I grew up with and what he has done to American Society.

[wmLambert]

QAnon tears of frustration

Follow the twisted logic. If Sussman had been convicted, then that meant the FBI was acting in good faith so he threw the case in order to target the FBI for knowing Sussman was working for Hillary.

Not all the WWG1WGA crowd is satisfied with that explanation as to why Durham failed.

I explained why the Cooper Court rescued Sussmann and Hillary. There is no controversy. Evidently, Durham knew the fix would be in for a trial in DC. He did the spadework for future cases out of DC. What he did do is get Hillary legally connected to the media getting the Steel Dosier and the Alfabank disinformation.

As for the judge? You know that Durham didn't push for his recusal. Must have been part of his master plan to lose on purpose. Meanwhile, no information on what he did to supposedly influence the trial. No complaints about ruling evidence in or out, no complaints about witness handling, no unusual jury instructions. But I'm not surprised your upset, wm, when you believe that just knowing a democrat means you're incorrigibly biased. Every Obama and Clinton appointee is amoral trying to sway the outcome of every case to advance their nefarious cause.

Yes, Durham did not ask for the Judge's recusal. This may have had something to do with the rules in DC. He was fighting the clock for other indictments, which I thought was a poor decision. It may be that if he really wants justice, he may have been resigned to a fixed trial in DC, so kept the cases independent to concentrate on the next ones. However; Mook's testimony is now written in the lawbooks, so Hillary is now a target.

[wmLambert]

Here is the difference.  I am not a Hillary supporter.  I could not care less if she is charged, tried, found guilty and goes to jail for a crime she committed.  However, it has been 3 years and the best they could find is that 1 lawyer who represented her, and other clients, may have lied to the FBI (now found innocent of the charge).

No. You are a Never-Trumper - a worse label than being a Democrat. If you bought into the years-long scandalous lies and straw-man construction of an anti-Trump, then that is your problem. I am happy to see the good - not obsess on incorrect conjecture that you accepted in the face of truth dispelling what you religiously believe..

Wm, you and your group would throw then all in jail with out a trial. Trump's own words "lock her up".  Trump has poisoned you against the system.  Like I said that is his greatest sin.

Again you use your own bias and act like your sin belongs to anyone who challenges your beliefs. Like I said: "religiously." No one I know would throw anyone in jail without a trial. However; you consistently allow your protected "saints" from true justice. Hillary should already be serving time. Comey listed her transgressions with eMails- then exonerated her by saying no prosecutor would go after her because there is no proof of intent. I already pointed out chapter and verse of the laws she violated - which specifically said intent does not invalidate her guilt. People yell, "Lock her up!" because they know she should already be in an orange jumpsuit and proving to the nation that nobody is above the law. There is a probability that the top Dems getting away with lies, disinformation, sedition, and treason allowed all the lower-level Dems in all the key states to have so obviously scammed the 2020 elections without fear of consequences. It's taken awhile, but more and more tainted elections have been proved and the win given to the true winners. Look it up. There's a new one every day.

I am not a democrat. I am a good Republican but not a Trumpist. But Trump has brought out the worst side of the conservative movement. Racism, bigotry, hatred.  I do not hate Trump. I pity him.  I hate what he has done to the Party I grew up with and what he has done to American Society.

Once again, no. There are no Trumpists. There are only those who reject the Never-Trumpers, like you, who lost their way. I have never claimed to be a Republican, but you never noticed that. You believe disinformation, and when confronted with truth, won't accept it, but instead, attack the messenger. Do your own homework and stop mirroring the latest DNC talking points, while claiming your neutrality. If being a "good" Republican in your mind means demeaning the most successful and honorable President in the history of our country, then you are only a know-nothing of the Washington Swamp. You are a Never-Trumper. Look what Liz Cheney bought herself with her similar idiocy. Tell us about Hillary and Joe. To you, do they still walk on water? How about OAC, Schiff, Comey, Hillary, and the rest?

[Tom]

Your staggering lack of self-awareness is less amusing when it's causing you to insult people, William.

[Crunch]

Your staggering lack of self-awareness is less amusing when it's causing you to insult people, William.

Sick burn, bro. I bet you’re the shiznet at recess.

[Tom]

I don't want you to get the impression that I'm taking your criticism seriously, Crunch, because I know you're intellectually dishonest in all your interactions here, but I do want to acknowledge that I think William sincerely does not recognize how far his impressions deviate from reality.

[wmLambert]

I don't want you to get the impression that I'm taking your criticism seriously, Crunch, because I know you're intellectually dishonest in all your interactions here, but I do want to acknowledge that I think William sincerely does not recognize how far his impressions deviate from reality.

Actually, Tom - it is an observable trait in this forum for the Never-Trumpers, who are the haters, to point at their victims as the bullies. If one stands up for oneself and posits facts and truths that the bullies proclaim as dealt with and proved wrong (when they're not), then that person is castigated.

I have seen almost every Leftist here, including Never-Trumpers use the bully fallacy: Laughter by Intimidation. Representing the advocate as being out of step with "right-thinking people" to the point where everyone laughs at your ridiculous viewpoint. No rebuttal is offered - just ridicule the messenger.

I say most people know Hillary is guilty of several crimes. I am not met with proof of innocence or challenges to the codes she provably violated, nor shown any error in basic facts, just called names. The only real answer to that they may use is to call most people too stupid to know she broke the law. The law was broken. That is not in dispute. But that is never admitted to. The next step? Laughter by Intimidation. They don't seem to understand that using that fallacy is a indication to indict themselves.

Notice the thrust is against how far "impressions deviate from reality." Two mistakes in that. Facts not in dispute are not merely "impressions." The other mistake is for "Reality" to be subjective for them to decide upon.

Look, Judge Christopher Cooper far transgresses the appearance of impropriety. The facts are clear: he did work with Sussmann in the DOJ. His wife defended Lisa Page. Cooper is an acknowledged and self-admitted Democrat functionary. Merrick Garland married him. Does anyone here think that not excluding a prospect for the jury from the panel because she and Sussmann are both parents on the same sports team is beyond the pale? Can a jury prospect who contributed money to the group under scrutiny be an acceptable juror? According to Tom and others here, what impressions deviate from reality?

You see the reality is that in DC, Democrats are the vast (91%) majority and have a history of subscribing to the idea that the ends justify the means. When the Judge doesn't even try to look fair in establishing a jury, then the fix is in, isn't it?

[Tom]

I'm genuinely not trying to intimidate you, for what it's worth. I think you're delusional. There is almost nothing you say, William, which is remotely true; some elements of your statements briefly dance along the edge of fact, but rarely intersect with it and even more rarely are relevant to what you think you're proving. (The whole "Judge Cooper knows people" bit, for example, only works consistently if you also believe that Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves from almost all election decisions.) You're not the only poster here to which that applies, but I think you're the only one who believes what he says at all times. And that makes me sad, because you're emotionally committed to your inputs enough that I'm not under the impression that chatting with some Internet rando is going to help you.

If you would honestly like me to address why the things you said in the last post do not in fact constitute evidence of the reality you're asserting, I'll do so. But I'm not under the impression that you're even able to question your assumptions, so I'm reluctant to do so; as I've gotten older, I've developed less patience with rhetorical wanking, and I'm afraid that's all it would be. I don't need to demonstrate your wrongness to other people, and I'm almost entirely sure I wouldn't be able to demonstrate it to you, so all I had to say in the first place was "please don't insult other people based on your flawed understanding of reality, which gives you an unrealistic read on their motivations."

[Crunch]

I don't want you to get the impression that I'm taking your criticism seriously, Crunch, because I know you're intellectually dishonest in all your interactions here, but I do want to acknowledge that I think William sincerely does not recognize how far his impressions deviate from reality.

Riiiiiiggghht.  Ok, bro

[wmLambert]

I'm genuinely not trying to intimidate you, for what it's worth. I think you're delusional. There is almost nothing you say, William, which is remotely true; some elements of your statements briefly dance along the edge of fact, but rarely intersect with it and even more rarely are relevant to what you think you're proving. (The whole "Judge Cooper knows people" bit, for example, only works consistently if you also believe that Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves from almost all election decisions.) You're not the only poster here to which that applies, but I think you're the only one who believes what he says at all times. And that makes me sad, because you're emotionally committed to your inputs enough that I'm not under the impression that chatting with some Internet rando is going to help you.

If you would honestly like me to address why the things you said in the last post do not in fact constitute evidence of the reality you're asserting, I'll do so. But I'm not under the impression that you're even able to question your assumptions, so I'm reluctant to do so; as I've gotten older, I've developed less patience with rhetorical wanking, and I'm afraid that's all it would be. I don't need to demonstrate your wrongness to other people, and I'm almost entirely sure I wouldn't be able to demonstrate it to you, so all I had to say in the first place was "please don't insult other people based on your flawed understanding of reality, which gives you an unrealistic read on their motivations."

You are guilty of illogical pronouncements of your mental superiority. Hillary's crimes were not "rhetorcial wanking" - they were proved facts.

These laws were broken, not bent:

UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL AND RETENTION OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL
18 U.S.C. § 1924 Class: A misdemeanor
Possible penalty: imprisonment for 1 year and/or $100,000 fine
"Knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said info at an unauthorized location without the ability to do so."

GATHERING, TRANSMITTING OR LOSING DEFENSE INFORMATION
18 U.S.C. § 793 Class: Felony
Possible penalty: imprisonment for 10 years and/or $250,000 fine
"Allowing (by means of gross negligence) any document relating to the national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed -or- willfully retaining unauthorized documents relating to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them -or- failure to report that unauthorized documents relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed."

CONCEALING, REMOVAL, OR MUTILATION GENERALLY
18 U.S.C. § 2071 Class: Felony
Possible penalty: imprisonment of no more than 3 years, a fine, or both
"Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same."

____________________________________

Hillary Clinton recklessly discussed, in emails hosted on her private server, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was executed by Iran for treason.
On "Face the Nation." Cotton was speaking about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran's nuclear program.

Iran confirmed on Sunday that Amiri had been hanged for treason. He was convicted of spying charges in a death sentence case that was upheld on appeal, according to the Associated Press.

"This person who had access to the country's secret and classified information had been linked to our hostile and No. 1 enemy, America, the Great Satan" a spokesman for the Iranian judiciary said. "He provided the enemy with vital and secret information of the country."

If you research these codes, there is no get out of jail free card because of intent. She did it. She intended to do it. And she lied about doing it. Even if it was proved she was too stupid not to intend to break the law - the law says guilt is not dependent on intent. Just doing it is a felony.

BTW, you shouldn't be sad because I reject your partisan disinformation. Unlike you, I've done the work. What I said is accurate. And almost everything you have stated over the months have been proved wrong.

All your mindless lecturing about Dinesh D'Souza being a "proven" liar has been proved false. I guess you missed the guilty pleas of those mules and their providers of faked ballots. The 2,000 Mules documentary has been proved accurate. even the conjecture on final numbers was made with the minimum guesstimates. The actual numbers are far beyond the numbers necessary to overthrow the 2020 vote-scamming. This is not conjecture, nor opinion. Facts are easy to fight. You just ignore them and insult the messenger. We also have official confirmation that the counting computer systems have been hacked. The earlier protestations that the Dominion voting machines could not be hacked has been walked back. Mike Lindell is due for a huge windfall, if he decides to go after his lying detractors. They tried your tactic to defame the messenger and got caught. 

Respond again, and dig your hole deeper. Apologies appreciated.

[Tom]

Hillary's crimes were not "rhetorcial wanking"

You misunderstand. I was saying that I was reluctant to engage you because I am not under the impression that you are likely to be swayed by conversation, so the only reason to do so would be "rhetorical wanking" -- i.e. just arguing with you for the enjoyment of argument, and/or to demonstrate my superiority to a hypothetical audience.

It should be noted that everything you claim is "proven" in your post above is not in fact proven. But I am not under the impression that you can be convinced of this; I believe you are, in your delusions, quite immune to external demonstration of your wrongness. Please understand that this is the "rhetorical wanking" to which I referred; I know you aren't going to be receptive to actual conversation, because you have built walls around your brain to prevent anything from penetrating.

[yossarian22c]

...
All your mindless lecturing about Dinesh D'Souza being a "proven" liar has been proved false. I guess you missed the guilty pleas of those mules and their providers of faked ballots. The 2,000 Mules documentary has been proved accurate. even the conjecture on final numbers was made with the minimum guesstimates. The actual numbers are far beyond the numbers necessary to overthrow the 2020 vote-scamming. This is not conjecture, nor opinion. Facts are easy to fight. You just ignore them and insult the messenger. We also have official confirmation that the counting computer systems have been hacked. The earlier protestations that the Dominion voting machines could not be hacked has been walked back. Mike Lindell is due for a huge windfall, if he decides to go after his lying detractors. They tried your tactic to defame the messenger and got caught. 

Respond again, and dig your hole deeper. Apologies appreciated.

Who has pled guilty? What crime did they plead guilty too? Where did they commit the fraud?

What in the documentary has been independently verified?

What official confirmation do you have that voting machines were hacked? In which state, county, precinct did the hacking occur?

No one ever claimed Dominion machines were unhackable. We claimed there was no evidence they were hacked during the election in 2020.

[yossarian22c]

I don't want you to get the impression that I'm taking your criticism seriously, Crunch, because I know you're intellectually dishonest in all your interactions here, but I do want to acknowledge that I think William sincerely does not recognize how far his impressions deviate from reality.

Riiiiiiggghht.  Ok, bro

Its amazing you how consistently you have played the right wing character you've created over the years. Thought you would eventually get bored of it. Turns out you only get bored of your user names.

[msquared]

Trump has to testify in NY.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ny-high-court-nixes-trump-195305325.html

[msquared]

The WI investigator who found no fraud but still did not like the results, and who has not turned over his work even though there are open record laws on the books in WI gets slammed by a judge.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wisconsin-election-investigator-fined-2k-164950744.html

[msquared]

And Bannon takes a hit on his contempt charge

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bannon-offers-absurd-legal-argument-161756574.html

[msquared]

More bad new for Trump in NY.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/real-estate-firm-must-comply-162142681.html

[TheDrake]

More bad new for Trump in NY.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/real-estate-firm-must-comply-162142681.html

With any luck they'll get a chance to go after all the other people they inflated assessments for. Because I guarantee they didn't do this just for Trump.

They keep attempting to declare the reason for the probe as political. As opposed to just saying, "We didn't do that, here's all our notes and information, see for yourself."

[wmLambert]

And Bannon takes a hit on his contempt charge

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bannon-offers-absurd-legal-argument-161756574.html

Funny how the same actions are perceived differently by different people. https://republicbrief.com/bannon-returns-to-fed-courthouse-a-second-time-goes-nuclear/

According to your post:

A federal judge refused to throw Steve Bannon a lifeline on Wednesday, instead deciding that the right wing provocateur will indeed go to trial in the coming weeks for refusing to testify before the Jan. 6 Committee.

However, the judge indicated he may eventually hold the Department of Justice accountable for spying on one of Bannon's defense lawyers and secretly obtaining his call and email records.

Bannon is delighted to go to court and not to Committee, because with discovery, his accusers need to answer for their own violations.

Just for the record. One AZ Mule is written up here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/watch-az-state-senate-candidate-gary-snyder-yuma-county-school-board-member-set-plead-guilty-2020-election-ballot-trafficking-crimes-exposed-2000-mules-hearing-june-2nd/

There have been several Mules who plead guilty, and a supplier of scammed ballots has also plead. As for the media quashing all inquiries about Dominion Voting Machines being "unhackable", However this advisory was posted: https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-22-154-01

There were four candidates. One was concerned after the vote was in, because Dominion said that candidate received zero votes. After a hand count, the entire election was changed, with the winner getting demoted out of the winner's circle. The proof was in the pudding that Dominion was hacked. Go search for any of this. It'll be hard to find, because even first-rate news articles written that say Dominion was hackable get taken down.

[yossarian22c]

...

Just for the record. One AZ Mule is written up here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/watch-az-state-senate-candidate-gary-snyder-yuma-county-school-board-member-set-plead-guilty-2020-election-ballot-trafficking-crimes-exposed-2000-mules-hearing-june-2nd/

There have been several Mules who plead guilty, and a supplier of scammed ballots has also plead.
...

Thank you, you've found one person who inappropriately collected ballots. You have 4 inappropriately collected ballots for a primary from someone on the ballot. No allegations the ballots were fraudulent. She was more likely doing this for herself, not for Joe Biden. That's a long way to go to get to 10,000. Keep updating me on actual indictments.

[wmLambert]

...Thank you, you've found one person who inappropriately collected ballots. You have 4 inappropriately collected ballots for a primary from someone on the ballot. No allegations the ballots were fraudulent. She was more likely doing this for herself, not for Joe Biden. That's a long way to go to get to 10,000. Keep updating me on actual indictments.

No, There have been many, but I just did your work for you on one to prove myself and show you for what you are. Did you want to explain how the feds stepped in upon finding illegal ballots and finding fingerprints on them, then, on the next day, all these Mules started wearing blue gloves to protect against leaving fingerprints? You'd think some of the Mules (far more than the 2,000 confirmed by their cellphone tracking) would have used some yellow ones or pink ones. Perhaps they were all bought by the same perp who identified with blue?

What has been done is to prove the crimes were done and directed by Party workers (some who also plead guilty), The work put in to research the documentary showed that these votes scams, by themselves, had the numbers to alter the elections.

That, of course, is without the Dominion Voting Machine input. Dominion filed lawsuits against anyone who implied they didn't walk on water. I wonder if all those targets, Like Mike Lindell, will now counter-sue since the ICSA put out official warnings that Dominion can be hacked. Sending the data to be counted in Spain should have been a big enough warning.

[Wayward Son]

Did you want to explain how the feds stepped in upon finding illegal ballots and finding fingerprints on them, then, on the next day, all these Mules started wearing blue gloves to protect against leaving fingerprints?

THE FACTS: This is pure speculation. It ignores far more likely reasons for glove-wearing in the fall and winter of 2020 — cold weather or COVID-19.

True the Vote’s researcher claimed in the movie that voters in Georgia started wearing gloves to prevent their fingerprints from touching ballot envelopes after two women in Yuma, Arizona, were indicted on Dec. 23, 2020 for alleged ballot harvesting in that state’s primary election. But the Arizona indictment didn’t mention anything about fingerprints.

Voting in Georgia’s Jan. 5, 2021, Senate runoff election occurred during some of the coldest weeks of the year in the state, and when COVID-19 was surging.

In fact, the AP in 2020 documented multiple examples of COVID-cautious voters wearing latex gloves and other personal protective equipment to vote.

In a similarly speculative allegation, the film claims its supposed “mules” took photographs of ballots before they dropped them into drop boxes in order to get paid. But across the U.S., voters frequently take photos of their ballot envelopes before submitting them.

(Emphasis mine.)

I know...the gloves all had the same color.  But was that conspiracy, coincidence, or film editing?

[Tom]

There have been many, but I just did your work for you on one to prove myself...

How many? I ask because I can find a grand total of three -- and that's only if you generously grant to the film every single instance of a dropbox being used to improperly file ballots on behalf of another person. The overwhelming majority of Google hits return the individual you named; they're literally the first result, meaning that you didn't have to do all that much work.

Is three "many," or is there another keyword I should be using to try to find even more actual criminal investigations?

[yossarian22c]

...Thank you, you've found one person who inappropriately collected ballots. You have 4 inappropriately collected ballots for a primary from someone on the ballot. No allegations the ballots were fraudulent. She was more likely doing this for herself, not for Joe Biden. That's a long way to go to get to 10,000. Keep updating me on actual indictments.

No, There have been many, but I just did your work for you on one to prove myself and show you for what you are.
...

Guillermina Fuentes, 66, and a second woman were indicted in December 2020 on one count of ballot abuse,

But looking closer you actually didn't show anything true about your 2000 mules claim that people are being indicted from their data. The women were indicted in December 2020. So hard to claim 2000 mules had anything to do with their arrest. And if you look back at what I've written about election fraud in the past this is exactly the type of race it happens, small local elections that can be decided by a couple dozen votes. Her motivation was most likely cheating for herself. Also the indictment was only about the primary. So you still haven't found a democratic vote harvester for the general election. One Republican got caught in Pennsylvania.

So I'll ask again who has been indicted and arrested as a result of 2000 mules?

[TheDrake]

Bannon’s lawyer, David Schoen, called the conviction “a foregone conclusion” based on pre-trial rulings, but said he would file a “bulletproof” appeal. “You’ll see this case reversed,” he predicted.

What is it with these guys? Did they somehow take an oath to never accept reality? Bannon loses again. Which means Trump loses, because Bannon has lots of information to trade if he so chooses.

[wmLambert]

Earlier I posted a pretty unarguable statement: "It is generally known by the majority of the people what has happened here. Trump was railroaded by Hillary and the Democrats, including the left-leaning Democrat apologists here in this forum. By any honest person, one cannot deny that the Russian collusion was made up out of whole cloth by Hillary and her people, and then abetted by the Clinton-aligned staff in the top floors of Justice. There is no longer any argument of that. The plan is how to outlast the guilt - not to plead innocence.

Hillary's people, including the judge in Sussman's case, want to believe that Sussman was not working on Hillary's behalf for claiming a non-existent Trump link to Alfabank, which he then billed for. Then they want to claim that Sussman did not get the go-ahead by Hillary to do so, even though we have the testimony from her own chief of staff that she did so. Weasels will waffle and say it was an innocent mistake that lasted two-and-a-half years and cost the country millions of dollars, several unsubstantiated impeachments, and systematic blocking of everything Trump was trying to accomplish. This has been called, by the best historians (not just the Clinton apologists) as the single worst example of political malfeasance, and failed coup d'etat, in the history of the country - yet it is still being defended in this forum.

Where are the heartfelt apologies?"

Instead of being answered or refuted, I was attacked. Has anyone here ever admitted they do believe Hillary did do dirty deeds and Trump was innocent? Just wondering?

[wmLambert]

BTW: Newsmax did a timeline presentation on Trump after his rally, when he was in his office watching the coverage of the protest. They had the channel he was watching and noted that he was watching a view of the march that showed no violence or storming of the Capital. That was the time that the J6 Committee was clamoring that Trump should have decried the violence (which was not reported on what he was watching) and made more statements for the rioters to stand down. How could this have been handled, had there been anyone on that Committee actually looking for truth?

[Tom]

I think that "inarguable" summary is almost entirely false, personally.

[yossarian22c]

Wm, can you name one of these “best historians“ and what qualifies them as best.

[wmLambert]

Wm, can you name one of these “best historians“ and what qualifies them as best.

I recognize them as they come up in my research. Some, like Rodney Stark or Dr. Burton W. Folsom appear many times and authenticate their observations well. I discount many so-called historians who write "puff-pieces" for hysterical politicians who want a certain conclusion that suits their imaginings. I treat so-called scientific authors the same way. Many, often quoted by some politicians are charlatans, poseurs who are mere bureaucrats who pretend to be scientists. For instance, I've read many papers on climatology, and have never found a real scientist who doesn't start off by stating we are currently in an Ice Age, during a warming interval which is way overdue to return to cooling. How many professional educators have you met who admitted there was no "Dark Ages?" ...or that the Church did not prevent Columbus from his desire to circumnavigate the globe because the world was flat? There are many charlatans out there, and even the ability for students to recognize them has been removed from basic curricula.

How many know Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote: "Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect, are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next. There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenicists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations - unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities." (From her book, "The Pivot of Civilization.") Her plan to abort such miscreants as a means to control the "unwanted" is rarely mentioned today, is it? With everything shaded to meet political ends, it is important to study and research those whoonly pretend to be credible.

IOW: Any person's expert must be vetted. There are good ones well-worth looking at and reading. Everyone should do the required work to know who is good and who is not. This is one reason I always request those I converse with make the effort to not take my expert's testimony blindly - but to find their own sources they can really on - but not to take disinformation without proper study.

[yossarian22c]

Wm, can you name one of these “best historians“ and what qualifies them as best.

I recognize them as they come up in my research. Some, like Rodney Stark or Dr. Burton W. Folsom appear many times and authenticate their observations well. I discount many so-called historians who write "puff-pieces" for hysterical politicians who want a certain conclusion that suits their imaginings.
...

So you have a sociologist and a historian who moonlights as a ideological economist. Folsom's work doesn't bring to light new historical details, he just writes the story from the point of view that capitalism is the ultimate good and government is always wrong.

[yossarian22c]

...
 For instance, I've read many papers on climatology, and have never found a real scientist who doesn't start off by stating we are currently in an Ice Age, during a warming interval which is way overdue to return to cooling.

All climate scientists know that the Earth's landmasses are arranged to provide cooler temperatures. Antarctica frozen over at the south pole cools the planet significantly. The America's, Europe, Asia, and Greenland do a lot to trap cold water and ice in the Artic ocean which also cools the planet, ice reflects heat. Water absorbs heat. This isn't some kind of novel unknown concept by climate scientists, so none of them state it at the beginning of every paper that is studying some other aspect of climate, and it is already built into their models for the climate.

I suppose I'll ask again here. What models are they using to predict a return to cooling? When are they predicting the cooling return? Because the last decade of significant heat matches up well with the IPCC models of the climate that predict warming.

How many professional educators have you met who admitted there was no "Dark Ages?" ...or that the Church did not prevent Columbus from his desire to circumnavigate the globe because the world was flat?
...

For the lack of a Dark Ages, pretty much every professional historian I have talked to or heard speak about the subject. As to the second, I learned a long time ago that Columbus just sucked at math. The reason he had trouble getting support for his expedition was that people had good estimates of the circumference of the Earth and knew he would never make it to China before starving. He got lucky there was a land mass in between or they would have all died. I'm sure some people still get confused about the Church's denial of Heliocentrism and a flat Earth. But I don't know of any professional historians who would confuse the two.

[wmLambert]

...
I'm sure some people still get confused about the Church's denial of Heliocentrism and a flat Earth. But I don't know of any professional historians who would confuse the two.

Actually you confuse me, too. Heliocentrism is usually compared against geocentrism - not a flat earth. All in all, it was the Church that sought out the science. It was the church that decreed the earth revolves around the sun, not placing the Earth at the center.

The issue with talking about "The Dark Ages" is not about history - but about politicians trying to denigrate their opponents.

Stark wrote:

...The entire "Dark ages" is a crock. Christianity actually inspired science. There was no science in ancient Greece or Rome. Aristotle thought the weight of objects were proportional to the speed with which they dropped. A simple test by dropping two different weights off a cliff never occurred to him. Guesswork without empiricism is not science. It was only at the birth of Christianity, that a wise God appeared who fostered the idea that science could be done and should be done. The Church understood there was a duty to understand God's handiwork, the better to marvel at it. ...The phrase, "Dark Ages," was a myth, first used in the early 19th century by atheists to claim credit for a sudden "enlightenment" that occurred against the Church's wishes.

My personal thoughts about these points of disinformation is that they are part of a dumbing-down of our educational system. John Dewey admitted that in his books, which are available for free on Gutenberg.org, that he wanted to create a system where students  would be good little government lemmings. Read his words. Don't accept my interpretations.

That also leads into the strategy created by Marx and Engels to counter Free Enterprise. They coined the phrase "Capitalism: as a pejorative and expected the strategy of "Immiseration" to end it in failure. That strategy failed because Free Enterprise lifts up all quintiles and no lesser groups were going to hate those on a higher quintile for "stealing" from them. The secondary strategy of "gloabal immiseration" fails also.

However wrong-headed these strategies are, they are the Democrat standard today.