The Goat Pen

Mueller--DID you order the code red!!

Trump--YOUR GD RIGHT I DID!!!!

later that day

Trump--Hey ty cobb whats a code red?

Professor Tiger wrote:How dare you disparage African American women? I am appalled at your racism and misogyny, DS.

...just to put a crimp in the president ever getting near a Q&A session with Mueller willingly. OMG...once Trump got his name right, it'd be a katey-bar-the-door lie-o-rama of epic proportions.

I kinda agree. Trump has absolutely no control over his mouth and tweetery whatsoever.

The only way Trump should ever meet with Mueler would be if, the minute Inspector Clouseau walks into the Oval Office, Trump's security detail shaves his eye brows and sends him away without his trousers.

But, if he did nothing wrong and there is nothing to hide as you have insisted for months now, what's the worry? Do you think that he's such a compulsive liar that he'll admit to crimes he didn't commit?

No. I would just like to see Trump express the contempt that this whole fraudulent Russia collusion hoax deserves.

Professor Tiger wrote:No. I would just like to see Trump express the contempt that this whole fraudulent Russia collusion hoax deserves.

For services rendered (email hacking and release, social media canvasing, monies donated), Russia received assurances of sanctions being eased or extinguished, as well as consideration to Ukraine Russian-backed rebels and limits to US backing of Ukraine sovereignty. We blew past collusion a LONG time ago. Try conspiracy, or outright treason if you will. Rick Gates has rolled over on Manafort, who is looking at 300+ years in prison. Flynn flipped, as well as Papadopolous and van der Zwann. There are dozens of sealed indictments we can only speculate about, but the names Kushner and Trump rank high on the list of potential subjects.

Oh, and then there's the obstruction of justice and the money laundering.

Oh, and then there's the 2nd District NY and the Cohen stuff. 800k+ documents and tapes, plus Cohen had been under surveillance for months. Indications are DJT is shitting bricks over this, which would explain the Rudy Giluiani hail-mary plus the announced hiring of Clinton's impeachment attorney today.

If all of that adds up to a hoax in your estimation, then good luck, professor Pollyanna. You'll need it.

For services rendered (email hacking and release, social media canvasing, monies donated), Russia received assurances of sanctions being eased or extinguished, as well as consideration to Ukraine Russian-backed rebels and limits to US backing of Ukraine sovereignty.......

Do you have any memos, texts, videos, audio recordings - ANYTHING - between Trump and the Russians that proves Trump made such quid pro quo "assurances"?

Of course you don't. And you never will. If such evidence existed, we would have all seen it by now. Inspector Clouseau is so desperate to find something - ANYTHING - on Trump he has been reduced to the embarrassing futility of indicting coffee boys, rummaging through a hooker's billing records from 12 years ago to figure out who paid her, and stealing Trump's legal file from Trump's lawyer. Not exactly the kind of behavior you'd expect from a real investigator, who has a real case with, you know, real evidence.

What you posted is nothing more than a wild conspiracy theory, just like it has been ad nauseum for the past year. What's next? Trump gave Putin a ride in one of the Roswell UFO's? Trump was the second shooter at the grassy knoll? Trump and Putin are co-Presidents of the Illuminati? Trump masterminded 9/11 as an inside job?

PS, even if Trump as a sitting POTUS told Putin, "We won't intervene in Ukraine" or "we will loosen up sanctions," unless he also says "I'm doing this because you broke US laws to get me elected," then that would not be collusion or treason. That would be another one of these:

[youtube]0mgQaFlo_p8[/youtube]

If that's where this latest TDS wet dream is going, that would be just be another one of these...

[youtube]Gq_bjaI0NTo[/youtube]

"If such evidence existed, we would have all seen it by now."

What makes you so cocksure of that? Why do you think that you, literally a nobody, would or should have seen anything whatsoever having to do with this case "by now"? Why do you get to decide when evidence becomes known? I'm not saying there is any, but your arrogance in pretending that you would have known about it "by now" if there was any is pathetic...

I am cocksure that the TDS nutcases have made a bunch of wild accusations, but have produced no evidence to support their accusations. Until such evidence is proven to exist, I am under no obligation to believe that it exists.

I am also cocksure that people who spend a year, millions of dollars, and countless media time, assuming that their wild accusations are true without any evidence, are irrational and unworthy of being believed.

You're a philosophy major, so you understand what logical positivism is. I am a logical positivist when it comes to accusations against Trump. I will also continue to laugh at the hysterical TDS noobs who operate 100% on their profoundly hateful feelings and 0% on proven facts.

Their motto is, “Odio Trump, Ergo Sum." My motto is, “Show me.”

Professor Tiger wrote: My motto is, “Show me.”

Actually your motto is "Show me NOW!"

you take it on faith, you take it to the heart
the waiting
is the hardest part

On March 7, Sarah Sanders in the daily press briefing denied Trump had any knowledge about the Daniels payments: “I’ve had conversations with the President about this…There was no knowledge of any payments from the president.”

on Air Force One, the President said he had no knowledge of the Stormy Daniels payment, and referred any questions to his attorney, Michael Cohen

and then along came RUDY lmao

"Until such evidence is proven to exist, I am under no obligation to believe that it exists."

You're under no obligation to believe that it doesn't exist, either. I know, I know, innocent until prove guilty and all that, but I have certainly seen you convict plenty of other folks in here on non-evidentiary grounds...

bluetick wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote: My motto is, “Show me.”

Actually your motto is "Show me NOW!"

True. The biggest reason for that is you have breathlessly attempted to "show me NOW" countless times. You have amassed quite a catalog of "THIS IS IT!" moments , but none have ever amounted to anything close to evidence proving Trump-Russia collusion. They are always things like "Trump's son had a meeting with a couple of Russian lawyers!" or "General Flynn, then National Security Advisor, had a conversation with the Russian Ambassador!" or "Manafort did dirty business deals before he ever worked for Trump!" or "One of Trump's gophers emailed the former Maltese Agriculture Minister!" And most recently, it hasn't even been about Russian collusion. It's been, "Trump had sex with a hooker 12 years ago!" then, "That hooker was paid!" then "Trump PAID her for her services!" I'm sorry, but all of your "THIS IS IT!" attempts to "show me NOW" have proven laughable.

Also, your "THIS IS IT!" revelations are almost always in the future tense, like, "Mueller is going to (fill in blank here)!" "Manafort is going to (fill in blank here)!" and Stormy Daniels is about to reveal that (fill in blank here)! You've been locked into the future tense for over a year now. You've cried wolf so often it is difficult for me to take any more of your predictions seriously.

Meanwhile, the FBI and DOJ are running out of top officials who are NOT under criminal referral for prosecutorial misconduct: Lynch, Comey, Mccabe, Strojk, Page, Yates. (And if the rumors are true, coming soon, Rosenstein. We'll see.) Each of these referrals have plenty of emails, texts, and memos corroborating the accusations against them. Unlike the Trump investigation.

SO much prosecutorial misconduct that a second special counsel has been named, right? Your rwnj sites nailed that one too. And how many indictments? Zero. How many criminal referrals? One. Will they charge McCabe for "lack of candor"? Doubtful. Will McCabe successfully sue to get his pension? Probably.

In comparison, Mueller has 22 indictments so far. Choke on this Faux report: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04 ... o-far.html

They're soooo in get rid of Trump mode, any credible evidence would have been leaked by now.

Bottom line is, whatever they come out with, you and Prof and everybody like you will claim it's either not a crime or else that it was manufactured and Trump isn't really guilty. In your book, he's innocent even if proven guilty, b/c you'll never accept the proof. Pretty convenient. But of course Trump already called this when he was running, he said he could shoot somebody on 5th Ave. and his supporters wouldn't care, and he was right...

Orange face is toast

hedge wrote:Bottom line is, whatever they come out with, you and Prof and everybody like you will claim it's either not a crime or else that it was manufactured and Trump isn't really guilty. In your book, he's innocent even if proven guilty, b/c you'll never accept the proof. Pretty convenient. But of course Trump already called this when he was running, he said he could shoot somebody on 5th Ave. and his supporters wouldn't care, and he was right...

At a minimum we’re going to find out if they care about campaign finance laws.

I think you already know the answer to that. At the very most they're going to say "well goddamn, that shouldn't even be a law," so, while technically admitting he's guilty of breaking a law, they'll decide that the law is so ridiculous that it's OK that he broke it. But like I said, that's the very most they'll be willing to concede. Many of them will just outright say it's complete bullshit, a setup by the "deep state", Trump did absolutely nothing wrong, irregardless of the evidence. Again, see Trump's "I could shoot somebody on 5th Ave." statement. Whatever else you may think of him, you have to admit he knows his audience. But as far as campaign finance law goes, it could be the most flagrant violation and his supporters are going to gripe about the absurdity of the law in the first place. Basically they're going to say there shouldn't be any laws concerning campaign finance...

How many criminal referrals? One.

Wildly, totally, and completely incorrect.

Accordingly, we refer James Comey to DOJ for potential violation(s) of 18 USC 1621 and 1001.

Accordingly, for disguising payments to Fusion GPS on mandatory disclosures to the federal Election Commission, we refer Hillary Clinton to DOJ for potential violation(s) of 52 USC 30121 and 52 USC 30101.

Accordingly, we refer Loretta Lynch to DOJ for potential violation(s) of 18 USC 1505 and 1515b.

Accordingly, we refer Andrew McCabe to DOJ for potential violation(s) of 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 1621, and 18 USC 1501.

Accordingly, we refer Peter Strozk and Lisa Page for potential violation(s) of 18 USC 1505 and 1515b.

Accordingly, we refer to DOJ all FBI and DOJ personnel responsible for signing the carter Page Warrant application that cotained unverified and/or false information for possible violations of 18 USC 242 and 18 USC 1505 and 1515b.

Why did you lie, Tick?


You embarrass yourself, prof. Those are congressional referrals. You can wipe your ass with those. The McCabe referral from the DOJ IG to a US Attorney is actually legit. Not like some Wyoming representative issuing a criminal referral because his neighbor let's his livestock graze his land.

Everyone accepts Nunez and Co.s histrionics for what they are. They have no legal standing; they only want to put on a show. For people like..well...don't make me say it.. ...