Of course I’m serious. Aren’t you? My opinions are based in fact and supported by tons of evidence. Democrats cannot be trusted based on their behavior before, during, and after Trump’s election. Democrats with the help of like-minded members of the permanent federal bureaucracy and media undermined and obstructed the transition and the administration. How can you defend your support for a party that spied on their political opponents? How can you defend your support of a party that encourages, enables, and celebrates violent riots across the country? How can you defend your support for Joe Biden who’s had 5 decades to solve problems but only managed to enrich himself and his family? Donald Trump has been in office for a short period of time and has managed to keep all of his 2016 campaign promises. Don’t pity me. Save your piggy for our freedom, prosperity, and security should your party manage to steal this election.
Dude, he hasn't kept all his promises. Stop with the Fox News talking points. Are we out of Afghanistan? Did he repeal and replace Obamacare? Is his beautiful wall built? Or did he just give billionaires the largest tax break in history?
It's a totally valid question. She claims not to have a dog in the hunt when it suits her and when it doesn't... Are you Karen's other account saintonge ?
1.) I know of no evidence to suggest that democrats "with the help of like-minded members of the permanent federal bureaucracy and media undermined and obstructed the transition and the administration." I am open to any evidence you might be able to provide.
2.) I have no evidence that Democrats spied on their political opponents. Again, I am open to any evidence you might be able to provide.
3.) I know of no Democrat who "celebrates violent riots across the country". Evidence needed again.
4.)You wrote that Joe Biden "had 5 decades to solve problems but only managed to enrich himself and his family?" What are (some of) the particular problems Joe might have helped solve? That's important. You may very well be right about certain unsolved problems that he did not solve, or at least try to solve, but without more specificity I can't respond.
5.) You wrote, "Donald Trump has been in office for a short period of time and has managed to keep all of his 2016 campaign promises."
Trump fulfilled some campaign promises, had partial fulfillment of others, and no fulfillment of some.
"1.) I know of no evidence to suggest that democrats "with the help of like-minded members of the permanent federal bureaucracy and media undermined and obstructed the transition and the administration." I am open to any evidence you might be able to provide."
You really haven't been paying attention.
So back in September of 2016, an allegation was published in Yahoo News alleging that Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was in cahoots with the Russians. There was already an investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) open into possible shenanigans between members of Team Trump and Russian intelligent agents (IOs). General Flynn was also a person of interest, since he was working as a foreign lobbyist and had attended a gala dinner where Putin was a guest (and was seated next to Putin).
There are differences of opinion as to whether Crossfire Hurricane was sufficiently predicated, but the investigation as such mostly involved boring things like looking into publicly available information.
Meanwhile, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign had hired a company called Fusion GPS to put together some opposition research on Trump. Fusion GPS reached out to a British ex-spy, Christopher Steele, to contact his connections in Russia to see if they had any damning information on Trump. He leaned on a friend and Russian ex-pat who worked for liberal DC Think Tank the Brookings Institution to do the legwork.
Anyway, Carter Page read the Yahoo News article and immediately quit the Trump Campaign. Within 2 days, he had written a direct letter to James Comey denying the allegations and informing Comey that he had a decades-long history of interactions with American intelligence agencies, including the FBI and CIA. He asked the FBI to call him so they could clear the matter up.
The FBI did not contact page for 5 months. What they DID do was try to get a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Warrant against Page.
Another thing they didn't do (something that would be standard operating procedure even without Page's letter) was look through their files to see if they already had any information on Page. Or maybe they did, and just pretended they didn't. Because those files would have indicated Page had assisted the FBI and DoJ investigate and prosecute Russian bad guys by acting as a confidential informant for them.
Pretty sure SOP would have also involved contacting the CIA to see what his interactions with them were (again, confidential informant).
Despite them not including any of this exculpatory information in their FISA warrant application, what they had did not meet the extremely low bar for probable cause to be granted a warrant to surveil an American citizen.
Enter Fusion GPS and the oppo research bought and paid for by Clinton and the DNC. This was the infamous "Steele Dossier". It included many salacious claims about Trump (including the assertion that he'd hired hookers to pee on a Russian hotel bed Obama had once slept in). None of the information was verified, but they characterized it as reliable and stuck it in their next warrant application (late October) against Page. That put the application over the legal hurdle.
Now you might say, "well, Page wasn't even working for the Trump Campaign at that point, so there!"
Except that FISA warrants do 2 things:
1) it gives the FBI the right to go back 6 months to surveil the subject's communications (during which Page WAS working for the Campaign)
2) it gives the FBI the right to surveil the subject, the subject's contacts, and the subjects' contacts' contacts.
So basically, any friend of a friend of Page's during the 5-ish months when he was working for the campaign was fair game for the FBI to surveil.
Which would have been fair and above board, except they illegally excluded exculpatory information on Page, that they already had in their possession, from their warrant application, and they marked the dossier as "verified" when it had not been verified.
By early January, even with their license to surveil Flynn's communications, the case agents had determined there was "no derogatory information" on Flynn and wrote up paperwork removing him from the investigation.
Peter Strzok, the lead agent on the case, told them the "7th floor" (FBI leadership) wanted them to keep Flynn open. The next day, Strzok and Comey met in the Oval Office with Obama, Biden and a few others (Susan Rice, Sally Yates, etc) to discuss Flynn. They had transcripts of calls Flynn had made, as incoming national security advisor to the president elect, with a Russian diplomat called Kislyak.
Comey told Obama the calls were "legit".
Biden suggested they try to prosecute Flynn on a Logan Act violation (a law that most legal scholars believe is unconstitutional, and wouldn't apply here anyway).
Obama told Comey to keep Flynn open and "put the right people on it."
Shortly after the transition, Comey had Deputy Director McCabe call Flynn and set up a briefing. Flynn asked if he was under investigation and whether he needed counsel present. "No no, this isn't an interview, you're not under investigation, it's a briefing. You can HAVE counsel present, but if you want that then I need to bump this up to the DoJ and it's all kinds of red tape."
Comey bragged on camera that he literally circumvented standard procedure to send agents in under false premises to interview Flynn (who was still under surveillance, mind you). Strzok and an agent named Pientka go and interview Flynn about the contents of his calls with Kislyak.
Flynn immediately tells them he knows they have word for word transcripts of the calls. The agents do not advise him of rule 1001 (which is arguably illegal), because that might tip him off that this wasn't just a briefing.
Anyway, they talk to him and report back that Flynn was truthful and candid. Comey wasn't happy with that, so the 302 summary of the interview (a document based on notes and memory, mandated to be completed by the interviewing agents within 5 days) was passed back and forth between Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page for a whopping 22 days before if you squinted just right you could argue Flynn might have lied to the FBI.
The lie is the equivalent of the difference between wording, "I didn't tell them to do nothing," as "I didn't tell them not to do anything." You can argue that if he told them go ahead and do X but and not to do Y, wording things the second way is a lie. Kind of. Depending on how you read the sentence.
This is what Flynn was arrested for.
Around this same time, case agents with the FBI went and talked to the Brookings Institution guy, from whom 90% of the claims in the dossier were sourced by Steele. He told them half of what was in the dossier was exaggerated, and the other half was rumor, speculation and things said "in jest" over beers--and that some of it might have been Russian disinformation.
The FBI, knowing this, went ahead and used the dossier to get another warrant renewal. Even worse, FBI senior lawyer Kevin Clinesmith took an email from the CIA that confirmed Page was a confidential informant for them, and altered it. He added the word "not". As in, "Carter Page is not a confidential informant for us."
Now remember, this warrant gave them the right to surveil every friend of a friend of Page dating back to May 2016.
I would argue the warrant was illegal to begin with, since there is a legal requirement to include exculpatory information, and the FBI had lots of that in their own files but included none of it, and because the dossier was described to the court as "verified" when it was not.
So yes, illegally spying on the Trump Campaign (and transition and into the administration). With the assistance of the DNC and Clinton with the dossier that contained a bunch of nothing verifiable, and at the insistence of Barack Obama.
Every single thing I've said here is verified by documents, most of them FBI documents that have been declassified over the last few months.
And what I've described here isn't the end of it. When it came to the FBI's attention that Senator Feinstein's driver might be a foreign agent, the FBI warned her so she could fire him and take whatever action necessary to protect national security (like change her passwords, review conversations had in his presence, etc). When it came to the FBI's attention that someone in Trump's campaign might be a foreign agent, they didn't warn him. They used it as a pretext to obtain an illegal warrant to spy on him deep into his administration.
That you have zero knowledge about the evidence backing this tells me you are watching news media for whom these facts are inconvenient.
I meant that people wouldn’t care what I think. Not what Karen wrote - she wrote an excellent synopsis that people really should heed. I should have written it better now that I re-read it.
I admit that the level of detail you are discussing, perhaps brought out during Senate hearings or similar investigations, is not part of my news diet.
After the JFK assassination, for several months I interested myself in details of his shooting, the rifle, the alleged killer Oswald, and the actual killer of the alleged killer (that second shooting having happened on live TV), Jack Ruby. It turned out that there were many books and documents continually appearing in that time period, which argued a wide variety of theories about what really happened on Nov 23 and 24, 1963. I read a few of them and then gave up. It appeared that there was no way I could ever tell fact from rumor or fiction by reading those materials.
The "establishment" story, as related by the Warren Commission, was that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy. Years later, a number of researchers made long and detailed retrospective studies of the evidence and the report. My recollection is that they all concluded the Warren Commission had been correct and that Oswald was the sole killer and Jack Ruby was just a man with some serious psychological problems (something to that effect, I think).
Today I remain very skeptical that those theories are correct (lone gunman Oswald and crazy Jack Ruby armed with a handgun). But that was a long time ago, and I have no feasible way of learning anything more. I remain skeptical and unsatisfied.
As a result of those prior experiences, I must confess that the collection of disputed stories and facts about Carter Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Dianne Feinstein's driver, Sally Yates, Crossfire Hurricane, Christopher Steele, Strzok and many others are not part of the materials I now think are useful for me to study at the present and likely not ever. My reasons are that the material is voluminous and would require a lot of time to read, and that my past efforts to investigate such matters have not proved very useful in subsequent decision making.
I have to content myself with information relayed by people such as yourself who decide to dig into many layers of information, as well as ordinary news articles and opinion pieces written by a diverse range of thinkers.
"I admit that the level of detail you are discussing, perhaps brought out during Senate hearings or similar investigations, is not part of my news diet."
Most of it was brought out during IG Horowitz's report, Brady material handed over to General Flynn, and documents declassified by then acting DNI Ric Grenell.
That your "news diet" doesn't contain any of this information says something about your diet.
"I read a few of them and then gave up. It appeared that there was no way I could ever tell fact from rumor or fiction by reading those materials."
Wow. Next you'll tell me there are people who think the earth is flat and since they can't prove it, nothing can be proven.
"Today I remain very skeptical that those theories are correct (lone gunman Oswald and crazy Jack Ruby armed with a handgun). But that was a long time ago, and I have no feasible way of learning anything more. I remain skeptical and unsatisfied."
Huh. And yet you believe unsubstantiated allegations against Trump in the presence of obvious evidence that people who meant him harm were willing to break the law, lie, cheat, steal, engage in every underhanded trick they have at their disposal, even when half the Republican party was against him... because... what?
You've made legally illiterate accusations against Trump (he's in violation of the emoluments clause because he hasn't revealed his tax returns). You're literally factually correct, but legally in the rhubarb.
You are literally the one saying there's a smoking gun when there's not.
"As a result of those prior experiences, I must confess that the collection of disputed stories and facts about Carter Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Dianne Feinstein's driver, Sally Yates, Crossfire Hurricane, Christopher Steele, Strzok and many others are not part of the materials I now think are useful for me to study at the present and likely not ever."
Yes, evidence is inconvenient when it doesn't go your way.
"My reasons are that the material is voluminous and would require a lot of time to read, and that my past efforts to investigate such matters have not proved very useful in subsequent decision making."
Yes, you're a very busy man. No time to look at all of this. You'll just stick to your story: Trump is evil. Because it's just not worth the time to see if you're wrong, and so long as you don't do that, you can claim you're right.
"I have to content myself with information relayed by people such as yourself who decide to dig into many layers of information, as well as ordinary news articles and opinion pieces written by a diverse range of thinkers."
For those not paying close attention, he asked for evidence, he got it, he said "I have to content myself with information relayed by people such as yourself ," but he was careful not to say 'OK, I was wrong.'
So the FBI and DoJ had a bunch of exculpatory Brady material on him, and they refused to hand it over. Flynn maintained his innocence throughout the prosecution, but eventually he had to sell his house to pay legal fees.
Right around that time, the prosecutors approached him and told him his international lobby firm might be in violation of FARA and they were going to prosecute his son (who was chief of staff at the firm) for FARA violations unless Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.
Flynn's lawyers, who had filled out the FARA paperwork for him, should have immediately recused, over a conflict of interest. Instead of doing that, they told him they might have filled some of the forms out wrong so he should probably plead guilty.
This is bad enough if they did screw up the paperwork. If they did not screw up the paperwork, it's even worse. Incidentally, Eric Holder, self described Obama "wing man" was a partner at the firm.
The prosecutors work out a deal where Flynn will serve no time. He pleads guilty to one judge, who then recused because he's chummy with Peter Strzok (lead agent on Crossfire Hurricane).
Enter Judge Emmett Sullivan. Flynn enters his plea, and Sullivan goes off on a rant about treason and how he doesn't need to abide by the sentencing recommendation and he's going to put off sentencing until Flynn cooperates with investigators and prosecutors on the other subjects of Crossfire Hurricane. The sentence will depend on whether Flynn is a good boy.
Flynn gets a new lawyer, and she files a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and starts requesting Brady material. The FBI and prosecutors... take their sweet time. She finally asks Bill Barr to look into the matter. He assigns a US attorney to do so.
Once the report comes in (with all that previously withheld Brady material attached) the DoJ files a motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn. I read the motion, it's pretty spectacular in terms of exposing how dirty the FBI were playing.
Of note is that precedent on rule 1001 requires that to charge someone with lying to the FBI the misstatement must be false, it must be intentional (not simply misremembering, for instance), and it must be material.
Keep in mind, the "lie" is saying, in effect, "I didn't tell them not to do anything" when trying to convey he didn't tell them to do nothing. And this isolated sentence would be part of a larger conversation, such as,
FBI: "Did you tell them not to do anything?"
Flynn: "Well, I told Kislyak that if the Russians felt they had to retaliate in kind to save face go ahead, but I asked them not to escalate tensions beyond that until the new administration was in place. So I didn't tell them not to do ANYthing."
So the question of whether this is a false statement to begin with is sketchy.
Second, Flynn knew they had a word for word transcript of the calls. This calls into question intent--why would he intend to lie when he knew they could compare what he told them against the transcripts.
Third, how could the statement, even if false and intentional, had any material impact? Comey himself described the calls as "legit". The contents of the calls were not a legitimate subject of criminal investigation. They were perfectly legal and proper. Further, because they had a word for word transcript, even if the calls were a legitimate subject of investigation, the "lie" would not have had any material impact on that investigation.
The charge fails on all three necessary elements.
Yet the prosecutors were determined to get Flynn to plead guilty.
Anyway, so the DoJ files this motion to dismiss, and Judge Sullivan, instead of doing what judges do in more than 99% of cases, decides he's going to appoint a de facto special prosecutor in the form of an amicus curiae, to continue the prosecution against Flynn. He chooses a retired judge with a history of anti-Trump sentiment on social media.
He then asks the amicus to explore the possibility that Flynn should be charged with perjury. Why? Because if he's innocent of lying to the FBI, then when he pled guilty to the charge in court, he was lying under oath.
You cannot make this shit up.
You have the two parties to the case in agreement to dismiss the charges, and the judge takes a giant dump on the separation of powers by appointing a de facto special prosecutor to not only continue the prosecution but to add more charges.
Flynn's lawyer files an application with the appeal court for a write of mandamus--an order from a higher court that Sullivan do his job. The writ is granted.
Judge Sullivan demands a hearing en banc (before the entire appeal court) and it's granted. The en banc then decides to withdraw the writ and throw the ball back down to Sullivan.
Now keep in mind, Flynn's "crime" was, when speaking about a phone call that wasn't even a legitimate subject of investigation, (maybe) wording a sentence such that it could be interpreted in more than one way. And I say maybe, because there's no audio recording. There were only the notes and the memories of the two agents, followed by 22 days of editing assisted by someone who wasn't even present at the interview.
This man lost his job. He lost his house. He's lost years of his life over something the FBI had no business investigating in the first place.
And all of this happened at the behest of Obama and Biden. According to Strzok's notes, Obama told Comey to keep the investigation into Flynn open even after the case agents assigned to it had requested it be closed, and even after Comey told Obama the calls were "legit".
To be fair, however, if I recall, Rogue Judge Sullivan is a Dubya appointee. But the en banc who handed Flynn back to him so he could continue to crap all over the constitution? 80% Democrat.
Except when it comes to right wing corruption. You seem to be vastly conveniently ignorant of any of that. You ignore Trumps war crimes and his fraud and try to excuse it by using the "all the other kids are doing it so it must be legal" excuse.
So funny how you pretend to be so informed yet are so biased when it comes to the orange turd.
If you could clue me into some of that corruption, I'd be happy to look at it.
Please make sure to be specific enough that I can at least enter search terms into google and find what you're talking about.
Hint: "Trump is corrupt," is not specific enough.
Also, I have asked you to provide me evidence (or even a detailed enough allegation for google) of these war crimes you claim I'm ignoring, and you haven't.
This tactic should be called "Idiot's whatabouting." Someone says "Where's the evidence for X." Second person says "Here it is . . ." and proceeds to enumerate said evidence. Idiot Whatabouter says "Second Person didn't discuss Y!", and tries to make you believe that he has disproven the evidence for X.
"3.) I know of no Democrat who "celebrates violent riots across the country". Evidence needed again."
Kamala Harris, on June 17, told Stephen Colbert that the protests would not stop and should not stop. She made no clear distinction that she was only talking about peaceful protests, nor did she call out the violence.
This is important because the protests had already been regularly devolving into rioting, arson and violence for more than 2 weeks.
So why wouldn't she make that distinction? How hard is it to say, "the protests should continue, the protesters should keep the pressure on, but the looting and rioting needs to stop"?
How is it a leap to interpret her comments as meaning, "what's going on now needs to continue"?
In fact, she did not come out and make any distinction between the protests and riots, or condemn the riots, until after Trump's RNC acceptance speech where he called her out for not yet having done so.
Kamala Harris said seven times in that interview that they were not going to stop. I had the impression she couldn't think of anything else to say about them. Same thing when Colbert asked her about her attack on Biden during the debate. "It was a debate!" Six or seven times.
Please tell us how you know what she's thinking Karen ? How did you prove anything by insinuating what she meant ? You're a very bad lawyer if think slander will prove anything in court.
Conflating someones statement in order to imply what they meant is just plain dishonest.
You're not very good at proving anything but your own bias and contempt.
That's all you do is make insinuations and bullshit claims Karen. You haven't ever proven anything you've ever claimed in this comment section to your own standards let alone the fake court room standards you try to hold everyone else to.
Are you liking your own comments? Because this comment was posted "just now" and it already has a like.
"You haven't ever proven anything you've ever claimed in this comment section to your own standards"
That's completely false. I haven't asked anyone to prove anything. I've only asked them to provide details I can google to determine if they're true or false.
And I don't hold anyone to courtroom standards. Unless you're going to say, "I accused a person of murder because they stole someone's TV, and now you're holding me to courtroom standards! This person is clearly a murderer for stealing a TV!"
If those are fake courtroom standards, I weep for anyone who needs to defend themselves in court.
I don't know how it is that you have no ability to format your comments to make them understandable.
She didn't say, "there are two things going on. There are peaceful protests for a good cause, and there are riots by bad actors hijacking the peaceful protests. The former will not stop and should not stop. The latter must stop."
This is what Republicans have been saying. For months. Yet she never bothered to make a distinction between the peaceful protests and the hijacked protests? And you're going to tell me that despite her political opposition being all over the riots, it NEVER occurred to her to condemn them until the polls and focus groups started going against her?
Come on.
Surely it's permissible and admirable for a politician to say, "you know, I think an injustice has been done, but I don't agree with beating people in the street for protecting their business, shooting people who are trying to protect a friend's business, or burning down a police precinct. Surely that's going too far. What did Target ever do to you? And where are elderly residents of this neighborhood supposed to shop now that all their local businesses are destroyed?"
Show me. Find me the video of her saying ANY of that and I'll admit I'm wrong about her. Do it. Because you know who couldn't find a single instance of her condemning the riots, arson, violence, vandalism and killings before Trump's acceptance speech? The USA Today Fact Check department.
And they found that what Trump said in his RNC speech was not true because AFTER he made that speech, she finally was arsed to say, "burning down a local small business is wrong!"
What kind of time machine are you living in? At the time Trump said it, it was true. The next day, Kamala is all, "well, you know, violence is always wrong" and that makes Trump's claim retroactively false.
Jesus, you people.
She had 90+ fucking days to condemn the riots while supporting the peaceful protesters. EVERY FUCKING REPUBLICAN DID EXACTLY THAT!
But somehow, you believe Republicans don't support peaceful protest even though they say they do, and Democrats don't support riots, even though they waited through 3 fucking months of riots until the polls and focus groups indicated voters don't like riots to come out and condemn them.
At this point, all I think is that you're a stunted teenager who's trying to get some blue haired chick to blow him.
If you want me to know what your position is, state it. And "everything is horrible and corrupt, voting is useless, the world is irredeemable, human beings suck" is only going to get you blown by some chick with blue hair and facial piercings.
Just keep in mind, they're kind of prone to making false accusations. So be careful.
OK, Skutch, let's cut to the chase. Go on record here advocating the arrest, trial, and (if convicted) punishment of all the rioters, without mercy, because you believe nothing excuse the looting, burning and violence.
I have no problem with that. Sorry to burst your tribal bubble. I also think Trump all the way back to Carter should be held accountable for their action no matter what crooked ass ideology they prescribe to.
Well, that's very charitable of you. How about "encouraging"? Is that accurate? When she says they will not stop, should not stop, and they have to keep it up?
Every Republican drew a distinction between peaceful protests (good) and riots (not good).
Biden and Harris only drew that distinction after the violence began to hit them in the polls.
Are you really this ignorant or do you lie like a Trump ?
December 16, 1773: “The Destruction of the Tea” The Boston Tea Party
340 chests of British East India Company Tea, weighing over 92,000 pounds (roughly 46 tons), onboard the Beaver, Dartmouth, and Eleanor were smashed open by the Sons of Liberty armed with an assortment of axes and dumped into Boston Harbor the night of December 16, 1773. The cargo was worth more than $1,700,000 dollars in today’s money. Merchant John Andrews wrote in his December 18, 1773 letter, “ten thousand pounds sterling of the East India Company’s tea was destroyed the night, or rather the evening before last…” The British East India Company reported £9,659 worth of damage caused by the Boston Tea Party.
Here's the stupid link you have to ask for every time someone shows everyone how dishonest and ignorant you purposely are.
Ah. So the British East India Company were an American small business?
I notice you did not include other facts in evidence in your link (though I thank you for not being a complete liar and not including the link).
There was no damage to the ships, other than to a padlock. The padlock was replaced by the Sons of Liberty.
Nothing was stolen or looted, not even the tea. A few attempts at stealing the tea were caught, prevented and reprimanded by the SoL. Mess and damage to the ships was cleaned up by the SoL.
No one was harmed, no one went home with an ill gotten Louis Vuitton purse or pair of Nikes, and the protesters stuck around to clean up the mess they'd made.
That's totally analogous to torching a used car dealership owned by a small businessman who pays his taxes in Kenosha. It's totally analogous to flipping over tables in a restaurant in Rochester New York. It's exactly the same.
You can't be serious. If you are, I pity you.
Of course I’m serious. Aren’t you? My opinions are based in fact and supported by tons of evidence. Democrats cannot be trusted based on their behavior before, during, and after Trump’s election. Democrats with the help of like-minded members of the permanent federal bureaucracy and media undermined and obstructed the transition and the administration. How can you defend your support for a party that spied on their political opponents? How can you defend your support of a party that encourages, enables, and celebrates violent riots across the country? How can you defend your support for Joe Biden who’s had 5 decades to solve problems but only managed to enrich himself and his family? Donald Trump has been in office for a short period of time and has managed to keep all of his 2016 campaign promises. Don’t pity me. Save your piggy for our freedom, prosperity, and security should your party manage to steal this election.
Dude, he hasn't kept all his promises. Stop with the Fox News talking points. Are we out of Afghanistan? Did he repeal and replace Obamacare? Is his beautiful wall built? Or did he just give billionaires the largest tax break in history?
Someone needs to take a civics class.
As far as what?
Appropriations.
So it wasn'the largest tax break then. Huh. I guess the Trillions given away by the Cares act isn't so either?
Are you arguing that Trump did any of that without the consent of congress?
How much is Trump paying you to comment on Matt's substack ? Aren't you Canadian ?
Really, Skutch. Even for you, that one is idiotic.
It's a totally valid question. She claims not to have a dog in the hunt when it suits her and when it doesn't... Are you Karen's other account saintonge ?
No. He was part of it like the rest if them and they were huge giveaways to themselves and their buddies.
What difference does that make Karen ? Did congress twist he arm to give himself a tax break ?
Nice attempt at a distraction though.
1.) I know of no evidence to suggest that democrats "with the help of like-minded members of the permanent federal bureaucracy and media undermined and obstructed the transition and the administration." I am open to any evidence you might be able to provide.
2.) I have no evidence that Democrats spied on their political opponents. Again, I am open to any evidence you might be able to provide.
3.) I know of no Democrat who "celebrates violent riots across the country". Evidence needed again.
4.)You wrote that Joe Biden "had 5 decades to solve problems but only managed to enrich himself and his family?" What are (some of) the particular problems Joe might have helped solve? That's important. You may very well be right about certain unsolved problems that he did not solve, or at least try to solve, but without more specificity I can't respond.
5.) You wrote, "Donald Trump has been in office for a short period of time and has managed to keep all of his 2016 campaign promises."
Trump fulfilled some campaign promises, had partial fulfillment of others, and no fulfillment of some.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000
But many of his campaign promises were policies I strongly disagree with, so I can hardly count that in his favor.
------------------
Now, can you please try to reply with some attempt at objectivity, as I just did?
"1.) I know of no evidence to suggest that democrats "with the help of like-minded members of the permanent federal bureaucracy and media undermined and obstructed the transition and the administration." I am open to any evidence you might be able to provide."
You really haven't been paying attention.
So back in September of 2016, an allegation was published in Yahoo News alleging that Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was in cahoots with the Russians. There was already an investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) open into possible shenanigans between members of Team Trump and Russian intelligent agents (IOs). General Flynn was also a person of interest, since he was working as a foreign lobbyist and had attended a gala dinner where Putin was a guest (and was seated next to Putin).
There are differences of opinion as to whether Crossfire Hurricane was sufficiently predicated, but the investigation as such mostly involved boring things like looking into publicly available information.
Meanwhile, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign had hired a company called Fusion GPS to put together some opposition research on Trump. Fusion GPS reached out to a British ex-spy, Christopher Steele, to contact his connections in Russia to see if they had any damning information on Trump. He leaned on a friend and Russian ex-pat who worked for liberal DC Think Tank the Brookings Institution to do the legwork.
Anyway, Carter Page read the Yahoo News article and immediately quit the Trump Campaign. Within 2 days, he had written a direct letter to James Comey denying the allegations and informing Comey that he had a decades-long history of interactions with American intelligence agencies, including the FBI and CIA. He asked the FBI to call him so they could clear the matter up.
The FBI did not contact page for 5 months. What they DID do was try to get a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Warrant against Page.
Another thing they didn't do (something that would be standard operating procedure even without Page's letter) was look through their files to see if they already had any information on Page. Or maybe they did, and just pretended they didn't. Because those files would have indicated Page had assisted the FBI and DoJ investigate and prosecute Russian bad guys by acting as a confidential informant for them.
Pretty sure SOP would have also involved contacting the CIA to see what his interactions with them were (again, confidential informant).
Despite them not including any of this exculpatory information in their FISA warrant application, what they had did not meet the extremely low bar for probable cause to be granted a warrant to surveil an American citizen.
Enter Fusion GPS and the oppo research bought and paid for by Clinton and the DNC. This was the infamous "Steele Dossier". It included many salacious claims about Trump (including the assertion that he'd hired hookers to pee on a Russian hotel bed Obama had once slept in). None of the information was verified, but they characterized it as reliable and stuck it in their next warrant application (late October) against Page. That put the application over the legal hurdle.
Now you might say, "well, Page wasn't even working for the Trump Campaign at that point, so there!"
Except that FISA warrants do 2 things:
1) it gives the FBI the right to go back 6 months to surveil the subject's communications (during which Page WAS working for the Campaign)
2) it gives the FBI the right to surveil the subject, the subject's contacts, and the subjects' contacts' contacts.
So basically, any friend of a friend of Page's during the 5-ish months when he was working for the campaign was fair game for the FBI to surveil.
Which would have been fair and above board, except they illegally excluded exculpatory information on Page, that they already had in their possession, from their warrant application, and they marked the dossier as "verified" when it had not been verified.
By early January, even with their license to surveil Flynn's communications, the case agents had determined there was "no derogatory information" on Flynn and wrote up paperwork removing him from the investigation.
Peter Strzok, the lead agent on the case, told them the "7th floor" (FBI leadership) wanted them to keep Flynn open. The next day, Strzok and Comey met in the Oval Office with Obama, Biden and a few others (Susan Rice, Sally Yates, etc) to discuss Flynn. They had transcripts of calls Flynn had made, as incoming national security advisor to the president elect, with a Russian diplomat called Kislyak.
Comey told Obama the calls were "legit".
Biden suggested they try to prosecute Flynn on a Logan Act violation (a law that most legal scholars believe is unconstitutional, and wouldn't apply here anyway).
Obama told Comey to keep Flynn open and "put the right people on it."
Shortly after the transition, Comey had Deputy Director McCabe call Flynn and set up a briefing. Flynn asked if he was under investigation and whether he needed counsel present. "No no, this isn't an interview, you're not under investigation, it's a briefing. You can HAVE counsel present, but if you want that then I need to bump this up to the DoJ and it's all kinds of red tape."
Comey bragged on camera that he literally circumvented standard procedure to send agents in under false premises to interview Flynn (who was still under surveillance, mind you). Strzok and an agent named Pientka go and interview Flynn about the contents of his calls with Kislyak.
Flynn immediately tells them he knows they have word for word transcripts of the calls. The agents do not advise him of rule 1001 (which is arguably illegal), because that might tip him off that this wasn't just a briefing.
Anyway, they talk to him and report back that Flynn was truthful and candid. Comey wasn't happy with that, so the 302 summary of the interview (a document based on notes and memory, mandated to be completed by the interviewing agents within 5 days) was passed back and forth between Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page for a whopping 22 days before if you squinted just right you could argue Flynn might have lied to the FBI.
The lie is the equivalent of the difference between wording, "I didn't tell them to do nothing," as "I didn't tell them not to do anything." You can argue that if he told them go ahead and do X but and not to do Y, wording things the second way is a lie. Kind of. Depending on how you read the sentence.
This is what Flynn was arrested for.
Around this same time, case agents with the FBI went and talked to the Brookings Institution guy, from whom 90% of the claims in the dossier were sourced by Steele. He told them half of what was in the dossier was exaggerated, and the other half was rumor, speculation and things said "in jest" over beers--and that some of it might have been Russian disinformation.
The FBI, knowing this, went ahead and used the dossier to get another warrant renewal. Even worse, FBI senior lawyer Kevin Clinesmith took an email from the CIA that confirmed Page was a confidential informant for them, and altered it. He added the word "not". As in, "Carter Page is not a confidential informant for us."
Now remember, this warrant gave them the right to surveil every friend of a friend of Page dating back to May 2016.
I would argue the warrant was illegal to begin with, since there is a legal requirement to include exculpatory information, and the FBI had lots of that in their own files but included none of it, and because the dossier was described to the court as "verified" when it was not.
So yes, illegally spying on the Trump Campaign (and transition and into the administration). With the assistance of the DNC and Clinton with the dossier that contained a bunch of nothing verifiable, and at the insistence of Barack Obama.
Every single thing I've said here is verified by documents, most of them FBI documents that have been declassified over the last few months.
And what I've described here isn't the end of it. When it came to the FBI's attention that Senator Feinstein's driver might be a foreign agent, the FBI warned her so she could fire him and take whatever action necessary to protect national security (like change her passwords, review conversations had in his presence, etc). When it came to the FBI's attention that someone in Trump's campaign might be a foreign agent, they didn't warn him. They used it as a pretext to obtain an illegal warrant to spy on him deep into his administration.
That you have zero knowledge about the evidence backing this tells me you are watching news media for whom these facts are inconvenient.
Very good synopsis Karen. I can vouch for your accuracy; not that anyone else cares. But well done.
I meant that people wouldn’t care what I think. Not what Karen wrote - she wrote an excellent synopsis that people really should heed. I should have written it better now that I re-read it.
I admit that the level of detail you are discussing, perhaps brought out during Senate hearings or similar investigations, is not part of my news diet.
After the JFK assassination, for several months I interested myself in details of his shooting, the rifle, the alleged killer Oswald, and the actual killer of the alleged killer (that second shooting having happened on live TV), Jack Ruby. It turned out that there were many books and documents continually appearing in that time period, which argued a wide variety of theories about what really happened on Nov 23 and 24, 1963. I read a few of them and then gave up. It appeared that there was no way I could ever tell fact from rumor or fiction by reading those materials.
The "establishment" story, as related by the Warren Commission, was that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy. Years later, a number of researchers made long and detailed retrospective studies of the evidence and the report. My recollection is that they all concluded the Warren Commission had been correct and that Oswald was the sole killer and Jack Ruby was just a man with some serious psychological problems (something to that effect, I think).
Today I remain very skeptical that those theories are correct (lone gunman Oswald and crazy Jack Ruby armed with a handgun). But that was a long time ago, and I have no feasible way of learning anything more. I remain skeptical and unsatisfied.
As a result of those prior experiences, I must confess that the collection of disputed stories and facts about Carter Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Dianne Feinstein's driver, Sally Yates, Crossfire Hurricane, Christopher Steele, Strzok and many others are not part of the materials I now think are useful for me to study at the present and likely not ever. My reasons are that the material is voluminous and would require a lot of time to read, and that my past efforts to investigate such matters have not proved very useful in subsequent decision making.
I have to content myself with information relayed by people such as yourself who decide to dig into many layers of information, as well as ordinary news articles and opinion pieces written by a diverse range of thinkers.
"I admit that the level of detail you are discussing, perhaps brought out during Senate hearings or similar investigations, is not part of my news diet."
Most of it was brought out during IG Horowitz's report, Brady material handed over to General Flynn, and documents declassified by then acting DNI Ric Grenell.
That your "news diet" doesn't contain any of this information says something about your diet.
"I read a few of them and then gave up. It appeared that there was no way I could ever tell fact from rumor or fiction by reading those materials."
Wow. Next you'll tell me there are people who think the earth is flat and since they can't prove it, nothing can be proven.
"Today I remain very skeptical that those theories are correct (lone gunman Oswald and crazy Jack Ruby armed with a handgun). But that was a long time ago, and I have no feasible way of learning anything more. I remain skeptical and unsatisfied."
Huh. And yet you believe unsubstantiated allegations against Trump in the presence of obvious evidence that people who meant him harm were willing to break the law, lie, cheat, steal, engage in every underhanded trick they have at their disposal, even when half the Republican party was against him... because... what?
You've made legally illiterate accusations against Trump (he's in violation of the emoluments clause because he hasn't revealed his tax returns). You're literally factually correct, but legally in the rhubarb.
You are literally the one saying there's a smoking gun when there's not.
"As a result of those prior experiences, I must confess that the collection of disputed stories and facts about Carter Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Dianne Feinstein's driver, Sally Yates, Crossfire Hurricane, Christopher Steele, Strzok and many others are not part of the materials I now think are useful for me to study at the present and likely not ever."
Yes, evidence is inconvenient when it doesn't go your way.
"My reasons are that the material is voluminous and would require a lot of time to read, and that my past efforts to investigate such matters have not proved very useful in subsequent decision making."
Yes, you're a very busy man. No time to look at all of this. You'll just stick to your story: Trump is evil. Because it's just not worth the time to see if you're wrong, and so long as you don't do that, you can claim you're right.
"I have to content myself with information relayed by people such as yourself who decide to dig into many layers of information, as well as ordinary news articles and opinion pieces written by a diverse range of thinkers."
Well, that's a start. Maybe.
For those not paying close attention, he asked for evidence, he got it, he said "I have to content myself with information relayed by people such as yourself ," but he was careful not to say 'OK, I was wrong.'
Lots of that in political disputes, I've noticed.
And all that was proven was that one crooked party was unable to frame the other crooked party this time.
Ooh. You're so edgy maybe you can convince my 18 year old's girlfriend you're cooler than him.
You are on Matt Taibbi's substack. What you could do is read the articles here.
You're very good at demonizing your political party's opponents. How come the press is 100% propaganda unless it supports your agenda ?
I'm not a member of a political party, and I'm not even an American. I'm just informed.
Nice try, though.
But you are constantly trying to demonize one side of a political duopoly you claim to have nothing to do with.
So you're a Trump employee then ?
Hey, here's some more about General Flynn.
So the FBI and DoJ had a bunch of exculpatory Brady material on him, and they refused to hand it over. Flynn maintained his innocence throughout the prosecution, but eventually he had to sell his house to pay legal fees.
Right around that time, the prosecutors approached him and told him his international lobby firm might be in violation of FARA and they were going to prosecute his son (who was chief of staff at the firm) for FARA violations unless Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.
Flynn's lawyers, who had filled out the FARA paperwork for him, should have immediately recused, over a conflict of interest. Instead of doing that, they told him they might have filled some of the forms out wrong so he should probably plead guilty.
This is bad enough if they did screw up the paperwork. If they did not screw up the paperwork, it's even worse. Incidentally, Eric Holder, self described Obama "wing man" was a partner at the firm.
The prosecutors work out a deal where Flynn will serve no time. He pleads guilty to one judge, who then recused because he's chummy with Peter Strzok (lead agent on Crossfire Hurricane).
Enter Judge Emmett Sullivan. Flynn enters his plea, and Sullivan goes off on a rant about treason and how he doesn't need to abide by the sentencing recommendation and he's going to put off sentencing until Flynn cooperates with investigators and prosecutors on the other subjects of Crossfire Hurricane. The sentence will depend on whether Flynn is a good boy.
Flynn gets a new lawyer, and she files a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and starts requesting Brady material. The FBI and prosecutors... take their sweet time. She finally asks Bill Barr to look into the matter. He assigns a US attorney to do so.
Once the report comes in (with all that previously withheld Brady material attached) the DoJ files a motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn. I read the motion, it's pretty spectacular in terms of exposing how dirty the FBI were playing.
Of note is that precedent on rule 1001 requires that to charge someone with lying to the FBI the misstatement must be false, it must be intentional (not simply misremembering, for instance), and it must be material.
Keep in mind, the "lie" is saying, in effect, "I didn't tell them not to do anything" when trying to convey he didn't tell them to do nothing. And this isolated sentence would be part of a larger conversation, such as,
FBI: "Did you tell them not to do anything?"
Flynn: "Well, I told Kislyak that if the Russians felt they had to retaliate in kind to save face go ahead, but I asked them not to escalate tensions beyond that until the new administration was in place. So I didn't tell them not to do ANYthing."
So the question of whether this is a false statement to begin with is sketchy.
Second, Flynn knew they had a word for word transcript of the calls. This calls into question intent--why would he intend to lie when he knew they could compare what he told them against the transcripts.
Third, how could the statement, even if false and intentional, had any material impact? Comey himself described the calls as "legit". The contents of the calls were not a legitimate subject of criminal investigation. They were perfectly legal and proper. Further, because they had a word for word transcript, even if the calls were a legitimate subject of investigation, the "lie" would not have had any material impact on that investigation.
The charge fails on all three necessary elements.
Yet the prosecutors were determined to get Flynn to plead guilty.
Anyway, so the DoJ files this motion to dismiss, and Judge Sullivan, instead of doing what judges do in more than 99% of cases, decides he's going to appoint a de facto special prosecutor in the form of an amicus curiae, to continue the prosecution against Flynn. He chooses a retired judge with a history of anti-Trump sentiment on social media.
He then asks the amicus to explore the possibility that Flynn should be charged with perjury. Why? Because if he's innocent of lying to the FBI, then when he pled guilty to the charge in court, he was lying under oath.
You cannot make this shit up.
You have the two parties to the case in agreement to dismiss the charges, and the judge takes a giant dump on the separation of powers by appointing a de facto special prosecutor to not only continue the prosecution but to add more charges.
Flynn's lawyer files an application with the appeal court for a write of mandamus--an order from a higher court that Sullivan do his job. The writ is granted.
Judge Sullivan demands a hearing en banc (before the entire appeal court) and it's granted. The en banc then decides to withdraw the writ and throw the ball back down to Sullivan.
Now keep in mind, Flynn's "crime" was, when speaking about a phone call that wasn't even a legitimate subject of investigation, (maybe) wording a sentence such that it could be interpreted in more than one way. And I say maybe, because there's no audio recording. There were only the notes and the memories of the two agents, followed by 22 days of editing assisted by someone who wasn't even present at the interview.
This man lost his job. He lost his house. He's lost years of his life over something the FBI had no business investigating in the first place.
And all of this happened at the behest of Obama and Biden. According to Strzok's notes, Obama told Comey to keep the investigation into Flynn open even after the case agents assigned to it had requested it be closed, and even after Comey told Obama the calls were "legit".
To be fair, however, if I recall, Rogue Judge Sullivan is a Dubya appointee. But the en banc who handed Flynn back to him so he could continue to crap all over the constitution? 80% Democrat.
The Democrats do a good enough job of demonizing themselves. All I have to do is talk about what they've done.
Except when it comes to right wing corruption. You seem to be vastly conveniently ignorant of any of that. You ignore Trumps war crimes and his fraud and try to excuse it by using the "all the other kids are doing it so it must be legal" excuse.
So funny how you pretend to be so informed yet are so biased when it comes to the orange turd.
If you could clue me into some of that corruption, I'd be happy to look at it.
Please make sure to be specific enough that I can at least enter search terms into google and find what you're talking about.
Hint: "Trump is corrupt," is not specific enough.
Also, I have asked you to provide me evidence (or even a detailed enough allegation for google) of these war crimes you claim I'm ignoring, and you haven't.
This tactic should be called "Idiot's whatabouting." Someone says "Where's the evidence for X." Second person says "Here it is . . ." and proceeds to enumerate said evidence. Idiot Whatabouter says "Second Person didn't discuss Y!", and tries to make you believe that he has disproven the evidence for X.
It works well on idiots.
"3.) I know of no Democrat who "celebrates violent riots across the country". Evidence needed again."
Kamala Harris, on June 17, told Stephen Colbert that the protests would not stop and should not stop. She made no clear distinction that she was only talking about peaceful protests, nor did she call out the violence.
This is important because the protests had already been regularly devolving into rioting, arson and violence for more than 2 weeks.
So why wouldn't she make that distinction? How hard is it to say, "the protests should continue, the protesters should keep the pressure on, but the looting and rioting needs to stop"?
How is it a leap to interpret her comments as meaning, "what's going on now needs to continue"?
In fact, she did not come out and make any distinction between the protests and riots, or condemn the riots, until after Trump's RNC acceptance speech where he called her out for not yet having done so.
Kamala Harris said seven times in that interview that they were not going to stop. I had the impression she couldn't think of anything else to say about them. Same thing when Colbert asked her about her attack on Biden during the debate. "It was a debate!" Six or seven times.
She really is unintelligent.
Please tell us how you know what she's thinking Karen ? How did you prove anything by insinuating what she meant ? You're a very bad lawyer if think slander will prove anything in court.
Conflating someones statement in order to imply what they meant is just plain dishonest.
You're not very good at proving anything but your own bias and contempt.
Ooh, did I make insinuations? Did I make a judgment about her intent based on what she said or did not say?
I thought that was fair game here.
Why, it's almost as if you're not a nihilist who think's voting is for chumps. It's almost as if you're supporting a candidate.
That's all you do is make insinuations and bullshit claims Karen. You haven't ever proven anything you've ever claimed in this comment section to your own standards let alone the fake court room standards you try to hold everyone else to.
Are you liking your own comments? Because this comment was posted "just now" and it already has a like.
"You haven't ever proven anything you've ever claimed in this comment section to your own standards"
That's completely false. I haven't asked anyone to prove anything. I've only asked them to provide details I can google to determine if they're true or false.
And I don't hold anyone to courtroom standards. Unless you're going to say, "I accused a person of murder because they stole someone's TV, and now you're holding me to courtroom standards! This person is clearly a murderer for stealing a TV!"
If those are fake courtroom standards, I weep for anyone who needs to defend themselves in court.
You're conflating protests with riots and looting again. You're very biased.
Really. I'm the one doing that. I'm the one not differentiating between the protest and the riots.
It's not Kamala Harris who failed to differentiate the protests from the riots. It's me.
Are you dumb? Serious question.
How is it a leap to interpret her comments as meaning, "what's going on now needs to continue"?
Are you dumb Karen or just a liar ?
I don't know how it is that you have no ability to format your comments to make them understandable.
She didn't say, "there are two things going on. There are peaceful protests for a good cause, and there are riots by bad actors hijacking the peaceful protests. The former will not stop and should not stop. The latter must stop."
This is what Republicans have been saying. For months. Yet she never bothered to make a distinction between the peaceful protests and the hijacked protests? And you're going to tell me that despite her political opposition being all over the riots, it NEVER occurred to her to condemn them until the polls and focus groups started going against her?
Come on.
Surely it's permissible and admirable for a politician to say, "you know, I think an injustice has been done, but I don't agree with beating people in the street for protecting their business, shooting people who are trying to protect a friend's business, or burning down a police precinct. Surely that's going too far. What did Target ever do to you? And where are elderly residents of this neighborhood supposed to shop now that all their local businesses are destroyed?"
Show me. Find me the video of her saying ANY of that and I'll admit I'm wrong about her. Do it. Because you know who couldn't find a single instance of her condemning the riots, arson, violence, vandalism and killings before Trump's acceptance speech? The USA Today Fact Check department.
And they found that what Trump said in his RNC speech was not true because AFTER he made that speech, she finally was arsed to say, "burning down a local small business is wrong!"
What kind of time machine are you living in? At the time Trump said it, it was true. The next day, Kamala is all, "well, you know, violence is always wrong" and that makes Trump's claim retroactively false.
Jesus, you people.
She had 90+ fucking days to condemn the riots while supporting the peaceful protesters. EVERY FUCKING REPUBLICAN DID EXACTLY THAT!
But somehow, you believe Republicans don't support peaceful protest even though they say they do, and Democrats don't support riots, even though they waited through 3 fucking months of riots until the polls and focus groups indicated voters don't like riots to come out and condemn them.
Who the hell do you think you're fooling?
Skutch and his comrades are fooling lots of gullible fools. Possibly including themselves, but that is not certain.
Way to demonize ! You'll get some Trump thank you points for that one sparky !
Try saying something that makes sense that doesn't amount to an emo-kid telling his parents to go fuck themselves.
Not condemning something doesn't prove anything but your own bias and contempt Karen.
Not only that now you are making false claims about what I believe and don't believe.
You are free to have your fucked up biased position but please stop making up lies about what I believe and don't believe.
It just shows how petty you truly are.
At this point, all I think is that you're a stunted teenager who's trying to get some blue haired chick to blow him.
If you want me to know what your position is, state it. And "everything is horrible and corrupt, voting is useless, the world is irredeemable, human beings suck" is only going to get you blown by some chick with blue hair and facial piercings.
Just keep in mind, they're kind of prone to making false accusations. So be careful.
If you want to know what my position is then ask instead of making it up.
You're far too dishonest of a person to have any meaningful conversation with since you are such a Trump cultist.
OK, Skutch, let's cut to the chase. Go on record here advocating the arrest, trial, and (if convicted) punishment of all the rioters, without mercy, because you believe nothing excuse the looting, burning and violence.
I have no problem with that. Sorry to burst your tribal bubble. I also think Trump all the way back to Carter should be held accountable for their action no matter what crooked ass ideology they prescribe to.
I would not call Harris's comments "celebrating", but I think she should have specified peaceful protests as acceptable.
Well, that's very charitable of you. How about "encouraging"? Is that accurate? When she says they will not stop, should not stop, and they have to keep it up?
Every Republican drew a distinction between peaceful protests (good) and riots (not good).
Biden and Harris only drew that distinction after the violence began to hit them in the polls.
And the murders contributed somewhat I would surmise.
Funny how you are now categorizing the Boston Tea party(rioting and looting) or any other of the US's riots and uprisings as bad.
It once again shows your absolute bias and ignorance of any sort of a nuanced position concerning human behavior.
So when will BLM throw their own laptops and cell phones in the harbor in protest?
Oh wait. They don't wreck their own shit, because that would be consensual.
Are you really this ignorant or do you lie like a Trump ?
December 16, 1773: “The Destruction of the Tea” The Boston Tea Party
340 chests of British East India Company Tea, weighing over 92,000 pounds (roughly 46 tons), onboard the Beaver, Dartmouth, and Eleanor were smashed open by the Sons of Liberty armed with an assortment of axes and dumped into Boston Harbor the night of December 16, 1773. The cargo was worth more than $1,700,000 dollars in today’s money. Merchant John Andrews wrote in his December 18, 1773 letter, “ten thousand pounds sterling of the East India Company’s tea was destroyed the night, or rather the evening before last…” The British East India Company reported £9,659 worth of damage caused by the Boston Tea Party.
Here's the stupid link you have to ask for every time someone shows everyone how dishonest and ignorant you purposely are.
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/the-destruction-of-the-tea
Ah. So the British East India Company were an American small business?
I notice you did not include other facts in evidence in your link (though I thank you for not being a complete liar and not including the link).
There was no damage to the ships, other than to a padlock. The padlock was replaced by the Sons of Liberty.
Nothing was stolen or looted, not even the tea. A few attempts at stealing the tea were caught, prevented and reprimanded by the SoL. Mess and damage to the ships was cleaned up by the SoL.
No one was harmed, no one went home with an ill gotten Louis Vuitton purse or pair of Nikes, and the protesters stuck around to clean up the mess they'd made.
That's totally analogous to torching a used car dealership owned by a small businessman who pays his taxes in Kenosha. It's totally analogous to flipping over tables in a restaurant in Rochester New York. It's exactly the same.
You actually believe this garbage ? How come we're still at war and he's now a war criminal if he's kept all his promises ?
Ah yes, the whole, "he got stuck with a situation created by others, and hasn't completely fixed it yet! Checkmate!"
Also, you literally keep throwing around allegations that are criminal in nature, as if other people will know what you're talking about.
How is he a war criminal?
He's dropped more bombs than Obomber now. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Link?
After you.
So no link. I'll just disregard then.
You pretend to be informed and you don't know about his war crimes ?
Link?
You don't have a search engine ?
That sounds a lot like, "do my work for me."