What if it was not the Russians?

[Crockett]

I've met women who look better than their photograph and I consider it petty and unchivalrous to criticize someone's appearance who is making news for behaviors unrelated to appearance. What has been revealed about DW-S honesty, integrity and ability to keep government secrets secret ... disappointing, maybe criminal. Investigate.

 

[Brad Austin]

Not trying to be mean but this isn't one of those cases a pic doesn't do one justice. Video certainly isn't improving things, maybe the opposite.



Btw, this video is hilarious if you analyze it. DWS is using the entire hearing to grill the Capitol Police guy about diversity issues. But it's all a ruse to set the stage.

After all the railing on diversity, as a last gasp effort (which she says 'and lastly') she slips in the question about returning seized property to Congress members.

It's clear as day she was smoke screening the whole time putting the guy on defense just to hit him with that subject.

She has a bunch of nervous ticks for the minutes leading up to it. She knew she was about to drop the bombshell topic of getting her Arwan IT guy seized computer back.

 

[Joe Fan]

It was confirmed today in hearings that Russia hired FusionGPS who produced a Russia-sourced dossier against Trump

Has not got media coverage has it?

Instead the focus is on Mueller investigation of Trump & Russia?

Makes no sense

 

[mchammer]

It was confirmed today in hearings that Russia hired FusionGPS who produced a Russia-sourced dossier against Trump

Has not got media coverage has it?

Instead the focus is on Mueller investigation of Trump & Russia?

Makes no sense

Yep, OU Bubba is an unwitting tool of the Kremlin.

 

[Joe Fan]

Yep, OU Bubba is an unwitting tool of the Kremlin.

And we may also have a witting tool of theirs as well

 

[Joe Fan]

Also coming out at the hearings, while FusionGPS was in the employ of the Russians, it had meetings with and gave information to the NYT, the WAPO, CNN, Yahoo News, the New Yorker and Mother Jones. This was after the primaries and during the general election. Thus, US media organizations were using anti-Trump information passed onto them from the Russian Govt through its US intermediary in an attempt to influence a US presidential election.

Collusion?

 

[Joe Fan]

...."Senate Democrats used a parliamentary maneuver Wednesday to cut short a high-profile hearing, where a key witness was set to testify on Russia's misdeeds and also raise fresh allegations against the company behind the infamous anti-Trump dossier.....

Here is some more on Fusion GPS by the WSJ/Kimberley Strassel --

"Who Paid for the ‘Trump Dossier’?"
Democrats don’t want you to find out—and that ought to be a scandal of its own.

"It has been 10 days since Democrats received the glorious news that Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley would require Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort to explain their meeting with Russian operators at Trump Tower last year. The left was salivating at the prospect of watching two Trump insiders being grilled about Russian “collusion” under the klieg lights.

Yet Democrats now have meekly and noiselessly retreated, agreeing to let both men speak to the committee in private. Why would they so suddenly be willing to let go of this moment of political opportunity?

Fusion GPS. That’s the oppo-research outfit behind the infamous and discredited “Trump dossier,” ginned up by a former British spook. Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson also was supposed to testify at the Grassley hearing, where he might have been asked in public to reveal who hired him to put together the hit job on Mr. Trump, which was based largely on anonymous Russian sources. Turns out Democrats are willing to give up just about anything—including their Manafort moment—to protect Mr. Simpson from having to answer that question.

What if, all this time, Washington and the media have had the Russia collusion story backward? What if it wasn’t the Trump campaign playing footsie with the Vladimir Putin regime, but Democrats? The more we learn about Fusion, the more this seems a possibility....."​

 

[Joe Fan]

Before he rushed to the airport to try and escape US jurisdiction, Wasserman-Schultz' IT guy transferred $300k To Pakistan from his office in the House.....

Who tipped off Imran Awan that he was about to get arrested?
Which allowed him to quickly wire $300K to Pakistan and almost escape justice?

 

[I35]

Who tipped off Imran Awan that he was about to get arrested?
Which allowed him to quickly wire $300K to Pakistan and almost escape justice?

Just further proof that the swamp needs draining. I'm getting to the point that it's time to set examples of these leakers and people who give information to tip people of things that are about to happen like in this case. They do it because there are no consequences. It's time to get back to the days of NOBODY is above the law. Hillary should be indicted on multiple things already. Job loss just isn't enough.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Just further proof that the swamp needs draining. I'm getting to the point that it's time to set examples of these leakers and people who give information to tip people of things that are about to happen like in this case. They do it because there are no consequences. It's time to get back to the days of NOBODY is above the law. Hillary should be indicted on multiple things already. Job loss just isn't enough.

If the news of him transferring the money is true, then the person who tipped him off should be investigated. Of course, these brothers have been in the news for months in thus the movement of this cash (if that is true) and the timing of the arrest could be nefarious or coincidental. Whomever is investigating will get to sort that out.

 

[Musburger1]

Pretty much sums it up.
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug17/russiagate8-17.html?fullweb=1

The claims that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election are now known as RussiaGate, in a loose reference to the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s.

In the U.S., the issue has been poisoned by profound partisanship: those who feel disenfranchised by the election of Donald Trump are trying to use RussiaGate to unseat or cripple the Trump presidency, while those who elected Trump feel RussiaGate is nothing but an attempt by the corrupt status quo to disenfranchise them.

Let's see if we can clarify the issues with some key questions.

1. Did Russia meddle in the 2016 U.S. election? This is the entire thing in a nutshell. But this raises a second question: did Russia successfully meddle in the 2016 U.S. election? In other words, we have two investigations: one to identify verifiable, legally actionable evidence of meddling, and a second investigation into the effects of any meddling--should evidence arise that would stand up in court.

2. What federal laws or statutes were broken? This is a serious charge, and the first step in any investigation is to nail down precisely what federal laws were broken? The next step is to assemble evidence for the criminal activity that will stand up in court.

3. What standard of evidence/proof is required in a federal court to convict the accused? Is intent a necessary component of the laws that were broken? What precisely constitutes burden of proof? It isn't enough to accuse persons unknown of wrong-doing: the precise laws that were broken must be identified and the case against specific individuals must be built on verifiable evidence that will stand up in federal court.

Recall that this is not about partisan talking points--it's about justice. Those who reckon justice counts for nothing in this investigation disqualify themselves. If justice no longer matters in America, there is no America left to defend.

4. If incontrovertible evidence of Russian meddling arose in 2016, why did the federal agencies under the Obama administration (Department of Justice, F.B.I., etc.) do nothing? While we can cook up various theories, the common-sense conclusion is 1. no federal laws were broken and/or 2) there was insufficient evidence that would stand up in court.

5. Precisely what meddling occurred? Somebody meeting with a Russian does not constitute proof of anything. rather, this is the classic witch-hunt accusation of the McCarthyite "Red Scare" of the 1950s--guilt by association: you were seen conversing with a Communist, thus you must also be a Communist--or at a minimum, you are tainted by association and thus under a cloud of suspicion that can never be cleared because no accusation of guilt in a court of law is ever made.

Guilt by association is insidious because it can't be cleared in court. Those accused of guilt by association are not innocent until proven guilty--they are guilty until proven innocent, a proof that can never satisfy the accusers.

A precisely defined chain of verifiable actions is required to prove meddling beyond reasonable doubt. So date, all the accusations have failed to meet this most fundamental standard of evidence of wrong-doing.

As for the claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concur that blah-blah blah"-- Where precisely is the evidence? If there is no verifiable evidence and no chain of events that can be substantiated with hard evidence that will stand up in federal court, then all we really have is accusations of guilt by association, i.e. a witch-hunt.

6. What evidence supports the claim that Russian meddling actually influenced the election? The claim that Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee emails has fallen apart for lack of evidence; it now seems clear that the hack was an inside-the-DNC whistleblowing incident.

As for the claim that Russian meddling negatively impacted the campaign of Hillary Clinton: the most damaging bits were all verifiably accurate in the public record:

-- The Podesta emails were in fact Podesta emails.

-- The video of candidate Clinton apparently collapsing on the curb was not fabricated; it was a video recorded by an amateur bystander.

-- Reports of pay-to-play and other unsavory activities within the Clinton Foundation predate the election by years.

-- Candidate Clinton's comments on "deplorables" were her own words.

Again, standards of evidence and proof of guilt of federal crimes require a precise chain of events and actions for which there is evidence that will stand up in federal court, , i.e. evidence that will persuade a jury or federal judge and that can withstand cross-examination and the inquiries of experts hired by the defense.

Given the absolute paucity of actionable, verifiable evidence to date, RussiaGate is so far nothing but a series of unsupported accusations of guilt by association, i.e. a witch-hunt. This is why some in the mainstream media have characterized the whole thing as a "nothing-burger."


Compare RussiaGate to Watergate. Watergate was always about compiling evidence of activities that violated federal laws. People who broke federal laws were identified, evidence was compiled and presented in a court of law where the accused were able to defend themselves against an indictment presented by federal prosecutors. Some were acquitted, many were convicted, others plea-bargained a conviction with a reduced sentence.

Those making accusations in RussiaGate must now put up or shut up: either present the evidence that supports federal indictments, or confess to the pursuit of a witch hunt, i.e. unsubstantiated accusations of guilt by association. Anything less than the presentation of actionable evidence that leads to indictments and convictions is not justice--it's just another witch-hunt that besmirches everyone who participates in the witch-hunt.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Those making accusations in RussiaGate must now put up or shut up: either present the evidence that supports federal indictments, or confess to the pursuit of a witch hunt, i.e. unsubstantiated accusations of guilt by association.

Why is it that everyone's screaming "show us the evidence" before Mueller's investigation has concluded?

 

[OUBubba]

Who tipped off Imran Awan that he was about to get arrested?
Which allowed him to quickly wire $300K to Pakistan and almost escape justice?

Maybe he's got a hornfans account. If he'd been reading here he'd have been laying low for the last few months.

 

[OUBubba]

Pretty much sums it up.
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug17/russiagate8-17.html?fullweb=1

The claims that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election are now known as RussiaGate, in a loose reference to the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s.

In the U.S., the issue has been poisoned by profound partisanship: those who feel disenfranchised by the election of Donald Trump are trying to use RussiaGate to unseat or cripple the Trump presidency, while those who elected Trump feel RussiaGate is nothing but an attempt by the corrupt status quo to disenfranchise them.

Let's see if we can clarify the issues with some key questions.

1. Did Russia meddle in the 2016 U.S. election? This is the entire thing in a nutshell. But this raises a second question: did Russia successfully meddle in the 2016 U.S. election? In other words, we have two investigations: one to identify verifiable, legally actionable evidence of meddling, and a second investigation into the effects of any meddling--should evidence arise that would stand up in court.

2. What federal laws or statutes were broken? This is a serious charge, and the first step in any investigation is to nail down precisely what federal laws were broken? The next step is to assemble evidence for the criminal activity that will stand up in court.

3. What standard of evidence/proof is required in a federal court to convict the accused? Is intent a necessary component of the laws that were broken? What precisely constitutes burden of proof? It isn't enough to accuse persons unknown of wrong-doing: the precise laws that were broken must be identified and the case against specific individuals must be built on verifiable evidence that will stand up in federal court.

Recall that this is not about partisan talking points--it's about justice. Those who reckon justice counts for nothing in this investigation disqualify themselves. If justice no longer matters in America, there is no America left to defend.

4. If incontrovertible evidence of Russian meddling arose in 2016, why did the federal agencies under the Obama administration (Department of Justice, F.B.I., etc.) do nothing? While we can cook up various theories, the common-sense conclusion is 1. no federal laws were broken and/or 2) there was insufficient evidence that would stand up in court.

5. Precisely what meddling occurred? Somebody meeting with a Russian does not constitute proof of anything. rather, this is the classic witch-hunt accusation of the McCarthyite "Red Scare" of the 1950s--guilt by association: you were seen conversing with a Communist, thus you must also be a Communist--or at a minimum, you are tainted by association and thus under a cloud of suspicion that can never be cleared because no accusation of guilt in a court of law is ever made.

Guilt by association is insidious because it can't be cleared in court. Those accused of guilt by association are not innocent until proven guilty--they are guilty until proven innocent, a proof that can never satisfy the accusers.

A precisely defined chain of verifiable actions is required to prove meddling beyond reasonable doubt. So date, all the accusations have failed to meet this most fundamental standard of evidence of wrong-doing.

As for the claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concur that blah-blah blah"-- Where precisely is the evidence? If there is no verifiable evidence and no chain of events that can be substantiated with hard evidence that will stand up in federal court, then all we really have is accusations of guilt by association, i.e. a witch-hunt.

6. What evidence supports the claim that Russian meddling actually influenced the election? The claim that Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee emails has fallen apart for lack of evidence; it now seems clear that the hack was an inside-the-DNC whistleblowing incident.

As for the claim that Russian meddling negatively impacted the campaign of Hillary Clinton: the most damaging bits were all verifiably accurate in the public record:

-- The Podesta emails were in fact Podesta emails.

-- The video of candidate Clinton apparently collapsing on the curb was not fabricated; it was a video recorded by an amateur bystander.

-- Reports of pay-to-play and other unsavory activities within the Clinton Foundation predate the election by years.

-- Candidate Clinton's comments on "deplorables" were her own words.

Again, standards of evidence and proof of guilt of federal crimes require a precise chain of events and actions for which there is evidence that will stand up in federal court, , i.e. evidence that will persuade a jury or federal judge and that can withstand cross-examination and the inquiries of experts hired by the defense.

Given the absolute paucity of actionable, verifiable evidence to date, RussiaGate is so far nothing but a series of unsupported accusations of guilt by association, i.e. a witch-hunt. This is why some in the mainstream media have characterized the whole thing as a "nothing-burger."


Compare RussiaGate to Watergate. Watergate was always about compiling evidence of activities that violated federal laws. People who broke federal laws were identified, evidence was compiled and presented in a court of law where the accused were able to defend themselves against an indictment presented by federal prosecutors. Some were acquitted, many were convicted, others plea-bargained a conviction with a reduced sentence.

Those making accusations in RussiaGate must now put up or shut up: either present the evidence that supports federal indictments, or confess to the pursuit of a witch hunt, i.e. unsubstantiated accusations of guilt by association. Anything less than the presentation of actionable evidence that leads to indictments and convictions is not justice--it's just another witch-hunt that besmirches everyone who participates in the witch-hunt.

We've been told for the longest time that this is a "nothing burger" and to imply that the Trump campaign had anything to do with Russia is "absurd" and/or "dangerous" ...smash/cut... DJT2 email "FW:FW: Russia - Clinton" and the ensuing meeting with what they thought was a Kremlin associated attorney. Any denials now ring hollow. The President was, at least, in the building and then promised at a speech that night a forthcoming breakdown on Clinton's Russian ties. The only defense that they use is "they really didn't give us much, so, nothing to see here...". Weak sauce. Watergate came down to the cover up being the thing. This will come down to the cover up, the sharing of election data with a foreign company and the foreign dollars that some facilitated into the campaign coffers. At least that's what will drive the orange jump suit selection process.

 

[Seattle Husker]

We've been told for the longest time that this is a "nothing burger" and to imply that the Trump campaign had anything to do with Russia is "absurd" and/or "dangerous" ...smash/cut... DJT2 email "FW:FW: Russia - Clinton" and the ensuing meeting with what they thought was a Kremlin associated attorney. Any denials now ring hollow. The President was, at least, in the building and then promised at a speech that night a forthcoming breakdown on Clinton's Russian ties. The only defense that they use is "they really didn't give us much, so, nothing to see here...". Weak sauce. Watergate came down to the cover up being the thing. This will come down to the cover up, the sharing of election data with a foreign company and the foreign dollars that some facilitated into the campaign coffers. At least that's what will drive the orange jump suit selection process.

It's now being reported that Trump personally helped craft Donald Jr's response to the meeting with the Russian lawyer that in hindsight was demonstrated to be false and misleading. That's the sort of thing that will reduce his credibility to zero come reelection time.

 

[Musburger1]

Why is it that everyone's screaming "show us the evidence" before Mueller's investigation has concluded?

I don't know, maybe the fact that POLICY decisions like a major sanctions bill that also illegally restricts the President from reversing prior executive actions is based on unsubstantiated accusations.

 

[Musburger1]

It's now being reporting that Trump personally helped craft Donald Jr. response to the meeting with the Russian lawyer that in hindsight was demonstrated to be false and misleading. That's the sort of thing that will reduce his credibility to zero come reelection time.

I can't defend Trump's incompetency, but I can see that he is the victim of a witch hunt or a soft coup if you prefer that term.

 

[OUBubba]

I watched a guest on FauxNews last night try to explain how Trump has been hard on Russia. Pretty laughable. If you just go by his actions there exists a recording somewhere to the East that he doesn't want the world to see.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I can't defend Trump's incompetency, but I can see that he is the victim of a witch hunt or a soft coup if you prefer that term.

If that's true, our POTUS is doing everything in his power to obfuscate the investigation contributing to the perspective he's hiding something. Every corner this admin turns there is something new with regard to Russia that contradicts a previous statement. Where there's smoke...

 

[OUBubba]

I can't defend Trump's incompetency, but I can see that he is the victim of a witch hunt or a soft coup if you prefer that term.

What if it comes out that A) he knew full well of information going to Russian troll farms so that they could target potential swing voters and Bernie voters. B) he facilitated (or know of) foreign money coming into the US for campaign purposes for his campaign or for super PAC's that supported his campaign. Would you still use the term "witch hunt"?

I don't think it's far fetched to suggest that his campaign accepted information from a foreign government and new the source. I think it reasonable to presume that they were acting in lock step with the foreign data operations and they coordinated their spending and other efforts in coordination with those operations. I think they looked at it as a hail mary as they thought it was a losing campaign anyway. And, to be fair, it was until Clinton walked onto Loretta Lynch's plane.

 

[Brad Austin]

Dem Senator Feinstein is heaping praise on the witness who testified to her committee about Fusion GPS' past work on behalf of Russian interests.

The witness testified he was targeted by Putin when he opposed Russia's desire to repeal the Magnitsky Act.

He also testified the Russian lawyer who met with DT Jr. hired Fusion GPS to run a smear campaign against him over his support of the act Putin wanted repealed.

The Russian lawyer is being tied to Fusion GPS. Which means the one who offered phony info to DT Jr. previously hired the company who tried to sink DT with the fake dossier.

Let's not forget she was rejected entry into the country before meeting with DT Jr. only to have Obama's people override it with a special exception.

Real evidence of Russian collusion is taking shape, but it was done to attack DT.

Feinstein Praises Witness Who Criticized Trump Dossier Firm

"WASHINGTON — California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says the testimony of financier William Browder to the committee about Russia’s influence peddling in the United States was the “best” she has heard on the matter.

Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Wednesday about Foreign Agents Registration Act enforcement in relation to the committee’s larger Russia investigation.

“I thought it was some of the best testimony I’ve ever heard. As a matter of fact, I just had another call with him this afternoon. He spoke, I thought, comprehensively without a note without a stammer and it’s obvious that his knowledge is extraordinary,” Feinstein told The Daily Caller.

Browder testified that Fusion GPS, the firm that created the infamous dossier on Donald Trump, had acted on behalf of Russian interests to repeal the Magnitsky Act, legislation which financially hurt Vladimir Putin and his associates.

The law is named after murdered Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who defended Browder when the American financier became the target of the Putin regime while living in Moscow. Browder described how Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, the same attorney that met with Donald Trump Jr. last year, used Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against him.

“Veselnitskaya, through Baker Hostetler, hired Glenn Simpson of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act. He contacted a number of major newspapers and other publications to spread false information that Sergei Magnitsky was not murdered, was not a whistle-blower, and was instead a criminal. They also spread false information that my presentations to lawmakers around the world were untrue,” Browder said in his written testimony.

Browder added, “As part of Veselnitskaya’s lobbying, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Chris Cooper of the Potomac Group, was hired to organize the Washington, D.C.-based premiere of a fake documentary about Sergei Magnitsky and myself. This was one the best examples of Putin’s propaganda.”

 

[Joe Fan]

Maybe he's got a hornfans account. If he'd been reading here he'd have been laying low for the last few months.

Which one of them is it?
Come on, you already know via a phishing scheme or maybe a honeypot

 

[mchammer]

Dem Senator Feinstein is heaping praise on the witness who testified to her committee about Fusion GPS' past work on behalf of Russian interests.

The witness testified he was targeted by Putin when he opposed Russia's desire to repeal the Magnitsky Act.

He also testified the Russian lawyer who met with DT Jr. hired Fusion GPS to run a smear campaign against him over his support of the act Putin wanted repealed.

The Russian lawyer is being tied to Fusion GPS. Which means the one who offered phony info to DT Jr. previously hired the company who tried to sink DT with the fake dossier.

Let's not forget she was rejected entry into the country before meeting with DT Jr. only to have Obama's people override it with a special exception.

Real evidence of Russian collusion is taking shape, but it was done to attack DT.

Feinstein Praises Witness Who Criticized Trump Dossier Firm

"WASHINGTON — California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says the testimony of financier William Browder to the committee about Russia’s influence peddling in the United States was the “best” she has heard on the matter.

Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Wednesday about Foreign Agents Registration Act enforcement in relation to the committee’s larger Russia investigation.

“I thought it was some of the best testimony I’ve ever heard. As a matter of fact, I just had another call with him this afternoon. He spoke, I thought, comprehensively without a note without a stammer and it’s obvious that his knowledge is extraordinary,” Feinstein told The Daily Caller.

Browder testified that Fusion GPS, the firm that created the infamous dossier on Donald Trump, had acted on behalf of Russian interests to repeal the Magnitsky Act, legislation which financially hurt Vladimir Putin and his associates.

The law is named after murdered Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who defended Browder when the American financier became the target of the Putin regime while living in Moscow. Browder described how Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, the same attorney that met with Donald Trump Jr. last year, used Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against him.

“Veselnitskaya, through Baker Hostetler, hired Glenn Simpson of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act. He contacted a number of major newspapers and other publications to spread false information that Sergei Magnitsky was not murdered, was not a whistle-blower, and was instead a criminal. They also spread false information that my presentations to lawmakers around the world were untrue,” Browder said in his written testimony.

Browder added, “As part of Veselnitskaya’s lobbying, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Chris Cooper of the Potomac Group, was hired to organize the Washington, D.C.-based premiere of a fake documentary about Sergei Magnitsky and myself. This was one the best examples of Putin’s propaganda.”

Dems have been tools for Russians since Stalin.

 

[Seattle Husker]

In the "unmasking" saga, HR McMaster reportedly doesn't think Rice did anything inappropriate.

© Getty Images
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has reportedly determined that Susan Rice, who served in his same role during the Obama administration, did not do anything wrong by potentially “unmasking” the identities of Trump associates.

Bloomberg on Thursday cited two intelligence officials saying that McMaster had come to such a conclusion. Republican lawmakers are trying to conclude whether or not Rice “unmasked” the identities of Trump transition team members that were redacted in intelligence reports.

 

[OUBubba]

In the "unmasking" saga, HR McMaster reportedly doesn't think Rice did anything inappropriate.

Rut-Ro. The orange rageaholic isn't going to like this. I think the adults in the room are tired of taking a backseat to the amateurs.

 

[iatrogenic]

It is boring and wasteful to watch you two play patty-cake. Every now and then, please try harder to post some valid info, or something that justifies your party's screwball ideology, or even something funny or interesting.

 

[OUBubba]

Is this better: https://www.wsj.com/articles/specia...hington-grand-jury-in-russia-probe-1501788287

 

[OUBubba]

It is boring and wasteful to watch you two play patty-cake. Every now and then, please try harder to post some valid info, or something that justifies your party's screwball ideology, or even something funny or interesting.

I like patty cake better than a circle jerk reference or some of the mooch's terminology...

 

[Joe Fan]

On Election eve, Loretta Lynch had the FBI chasing down internet memes

Not sure if internet meme police is part of the FBI's jurisdiction
But, even if it were, we can all agree that this was a poor use of government resources

 

[Seattle Husker]

On Election eve, Loretta Lynch had the FBI chasing down internet memes

Not sure if internet meme police is part of the FBI's jurisdiction
But, even if it were, we can all agree that this was a poor use of government resources

Disinformation campaigns sponsored by foreign enemies are not important? Clearly that's not the consensus on Reddit and 4Chan.