but there aren't skulls on their uniforms
How do you do that? How do you set up an entire country to be carved up like a Christmas ham, knowing how badly you're going to screw the working classes over, and NOT ask yourself, "Are we the baddies?" like the Nazis in that one Mitchell and Webb skit?
"You know...I was thinking....here we are dressed like corrupt corporate executives from a 1980's Captain Planet episode; we pit the poor against each other, throw them into prison for light drug offenses, support ISIS, express contempt for anyone who lives outside of a coastal city, promote rampant corruption within our political system, sell our military and industrial secrets to Chinese Kleptocrats and have bombed peasant villages in every country ending with the word "stan"..............so.....um....are we the Baddies?"
Had to google what that was and
I know you're just indulging in some wishful thinking but we both know that if something like that actually happened that shit would be buried so deep it would pop up in China.All we need now for more salt with this is someone outsing Obama as a Cosby-like rapist.
All we need now for more salt with this is someone outsing Obama as a Cosby-like rapist.
I want to reply with my usual stolen "X raped and murdered a girl in 1990", but... look at him. Look at that bitch-made nigga. If there was a rape involve Obammy, he would very obviously not be on the "rapist" side of things.
Even worse. I think they believe they don't have to justify themselles morally. They have power and that proves they are right and they deserve to have power. And since that is the case, then they should have more power. It completely flips Marx on his head.Because you are getting stupid rich (and powerful) doing it. You are ensuring yourself and your cronies are in power. Its the same thing about Merkel letting in millions of violent islamists - none of them are moving into her neighborhood, so who cares as long as they vote the right way.
I'm pretty sure Hilary Clinton hasn't looked in a mirror since the 90s.
That’s why no one is supposed to be above the law. But Jefferson is a neo-Nazi or some shit according the people who burn Saint Mueller candles and give Michelle Obama’s arms a cum tribute every week.I know you're just indulging in some wishful thinking but we both know that if something like that actually happened that shit would be buried so deep it would pop up in China.
After all the Black Messiah possesses the almighty D of protection.
I mean has the Black Face wearing, Infanticide supporting Governor of Virginia resigned yet? What about the rape accused LG of Virginia? Or the AG of Virginia who also has worn Black Face?
Rules and Standards are for Republicans.
Even worse. I think they believe they don't have to justify themselles morally. They have power and that proves they are right and they deserve to have power. And since that is the case, then they should have more power. It completely flips Marx on his head.
Credit where credit's due on actually apologising for the witch hunt. But yeah, good luck to this person finding work anywhere in the MSM after they blacklist them for betraying the narrative.Apologies to President Trump
BY SHARYL ATTKISSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
With the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller's probe now known to a significant degree, it seems apologies are in order.
However, judging by the recent past, apologies are not likely forthcoming from the responsible parties.
In this context, it matters not whether one is a supporter or a critic of President Trump.
Whatever his supposed flaws, the rampant accusations and speculation that shrouded Trump's presidency, even before it began, ultimately have proven unfounded. Just as Trump said all along.
Yet, each time Trump said so, some of us in the media lampooned him. We treated any words he spoke in his own defense as if they were automatically to be disbelieved because he had uttered them. Some even declared his words to be "lies," although they had no evidence to back up their claims.
We in the media allowed unproven charges and false accusations to dominate the news landscape for more than two years, in a way that was wildly unbalanced and disproportionate to the evidence.
We did a poor job of tracking down leaks of false information. We failed to reasonably weigh the motives of anonymous sources and those claiming to have secret, special evidence of Trump's "treason."
As such, we reported a tremendous amount of false information, always to Trump's detriment.
And when we corrected our mistakes, we often doubled down more than we apologized. We may have been technically wrong on that tiny point, we would acknowledge. But, in the same breath, we would insist that Trump was so obviously guilty of being Russian President Vladimir Putin's puppet that the technical details hardly mattered.
So, a round of apologies seem in order.
Apologies to Trump on behalf of those in the U.S. intelligence community, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, which allowed the weaponization of sensitive, intrusive intelligence tools against innocent citizens such as Carter Page, an adviser to Trump's presidential campaign.
Apologies also to Page himself, to Jerome Corsi, Donald Trump Jr., and other citizens whose rights were violated or who were unfairly caught up in surveillance or the heated pursuit of charges based on little more than false, unproven opposition research paid for by Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Apologies for the stress on their jobs and to their families, the damage to their reputations, the money they had to spend to hire legal representation and defend themselves from charges for crimes they did not commit.
Apologies on behalf of those in the intelligence community who leaked true information out of context to make Trump look guilty, and who sometimes leaked false information to try to implicate or frame him.
Apologies from those in the chain of command at the FBI and the Department of Justice who were supposed to make sure all information presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is verified but did not do so.
Apologies from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court judges who are supposed to serve as one of the few checks and balances to prevent the FBI from wiretapping innocent Americans. Whether because of blind trust in the FBI or out of ignorance or even malfeasance, they failed at this important job.
Apologies to the American people who did not receive the full attention of their government while political points were being scored; who were not told about some important world events because they were crowded out of the news by the persistent insistence that Trump was working for Russia.
Apologies all the way around.
And now, with those apologies handled - are more than apologies due?
Should we try to learn more about those supposed Russian sources who provided false "intel" contained in the "dossier" against Trump, Page and others? Should we learn how these sources came to the attention of ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who built the dossier and claimed that some of the sources were close to Putin?
When and where did Steele meet with these high-level Russian sources who provided the apparently false information?
Are these the people who actually took proven, concrete steps to interfere in the 2016 election and sabotage Trump's presidency, beginning in its earliest days?
Just who conspired to put the "dossier" into the hands of the FBI? Who, within our intel community, dropped the ball on verifying the information and, instead, leaked it to the press and presented it to the FISC as if legitimate?
"Sorry" hardly seems to be enough.
Will anyone be held accountable?
Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) is an Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist, author of The New York Times best-sellers "The Smear" and "Stonewalled," and host of Sinclair's Sunday TV program, "Full Measure."
GQ is doubling down on the impeachment narrative. Not to the surprise of anyone. Only need the first two paragraphs of this one to get the message.
Let’s start with the big fat disclosure that I have not read the Mueller Report and that you, fair reader, almost certainly haven’t either. All that you and I have to go by at the moment is this four-page letter issued by attorney general and evil farmer in a claymation movie William Barr. The Trump appointee had every reason to “nah” away the idea of charging the president with obstruction, to play down any potentially explosive findings in the guts of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and to play up its conclusions in the same clumsy, bullheaded manner in which his boss inevitably played them up on Twitter last night:
When (or, I suppose with great weariness, if) the Mueller Report becomes public, it’ll likely reboot the news cycle and hopefully offer up juicy details about the Trump campaign’s malfeasance that Mueller may not have found actionable, but may still be publicly damning nonetheless. We haven’t even touched on the other active investigations into Trump going on right now at the state and federal levels, or the fact that Trump does impeachable shit out in the open on a daily basis and has fashioned his administration into sponcon for shitty Trump properties.
William Burr is a evil farmer from a claymation movie.Let’s start with the big fat disclosure that I have not read the Mueller Report and that you, fair reader, almost certainly haven’t either. All that you and I have to go by at the moment is this four-page letter issued by attorney general and evil farmer in a claymation movie William Barr.
WASHINGTON — It was one of the more outlandish statements in a campaign replete with them: In a news conference in July 2016, Donald J. Trump made a direct appeal to Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and make them public.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
As it turns out, that same day, the Russians — whether they had tuned in or not — made their first effort to break into the servers used by Mrs. Clinton’s personal office, according to a sweeping 29-page indictment unsealed Friday by the special counsel’s office that charged 12 Russians with election hacking.
The indictment did not address the question of whether the Russians’ actions were actually in response to Mr. Trump. It said nothing at all about Mr. Trump’s request for help from Russia — a remark that had unnerved American intelligence and law enforcement officials who were closely monitoring Russia’s efforts to influence the election.
[Read the indictment here.]
But the indictment did offer some clues about what happened, implying that the hacking had occurred later on the day Mr. Trump issued his invitation. He made the statement around 10:30 a.m. July 27 at his golf course in Doral, Fla. It was late afternoon in Russia.
“For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the conspirators attempted after-hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton’s personal office,” according to the indictment, referring to spearphishing, a common tactic used to target email accounts.
The indictment said that on the same day, Russians began an effort to target 76 Clinton campaign email accounts.
How Russia Hacked the Democrats in 2016
An indictment from the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election explains how 12 Russian intelligence officers hacked the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general and the Justice Department official overseeing the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, said the authorities were not alleging in the indictment that Americans had knowingly been in contact with the Russians about the hacking.
“The conspirators corresponded with several Americans during the course of the conspiracy through the internet,” Mr. Rosenstein said. “There’s no allegation in this indictment that the Americans knew they were corresponding with Russian intelligence officers.”
Investigators for Mr. Mueller would like to ask Mr. Trump what he knew about the hackings. The president has refused for several months to sit for an interview.
At the 2016 news conference, Mr. Trump made a series of statements on Russia and raised questions about whether the Kremlin had actually been behind the earlier hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee. Emails from the committee had been made public days before, on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, creating a significant distraction as the party formally nominated Mrs. Clinton.
“Nobody even knows this, it’s probably China, or it could be somebody sitting in his bed,” Mr. Trump said about possible perpetrators of the hackings. “But it shows how weak we are, it shows how disrespected we are. Total — assuming it’s Russia or China or one of the major countries and competitors, it’s a total sign of disrespect for our country. Putin and the leaders throughout the world have no respect for our country anymore, and they certainly have no respect for our leader.”
Mr. Trump also signaled then that he would be open to recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. The Obama administration and the European Union had considered the seizure illegal and imposed sanctions.
“We’ll be looking at that,” Mr. Trump said when asked if he would recognize Crimea as Russian land and lift sanctions that had been imposed after the annexation. “Yeah, we’ll be looking.”
He still is, if his recent statements are any indication, as he prepares to meet one-on-one with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia early next week in Finland.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/...on=CompanionColumn&contentCollection=Trending