Re: 'Trump Should Watch His Back Around Mike Pence' :Lawrence O'Donnell MSNBC

[AlleyCat]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:09:57 -0700 (PDT), mog...@hotmail.com says...

>
> Lawrence O'Donnell: 'Trump Should Watch His Back Around Mike Pence'
> AlterNet - August 9, 2017
>
> -- http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/lawrence-odonnell-trump-should-watch-his-back-around-mike-pence

"But MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell isn't buying the vice president's
theatrical outrage."

So fucking what?

We're supposed to believe THAT lying pansy ass Democrat?

[giggle]

You fucking dumb ass liberal Democrats... you'll believe ANYTHING, if
someone on the left says it.

"According to O'Donnell, Pence has an unusual window into the 'laziness'
of the Trump presidency and is in a unique position to succeed the
unpopular president."

First off, he's only "unpopular" with Democrats (polls don't mean SHIT...
ask Hillary Fat Ass Clinton)... secondly, WHAT "laziness"? Please qualify
that stupid remark.

"He sees [Trump's] ignorance up close," O'Donnell said of the VP.

WHAT "ignorance"? Please qualify that stupid remark. Did O'Donnel think
that THE dumbest President EVER, Obama, knew what the fuck HE was doing
when he took office?

Riiiiight.

"Mike Pence knows he may be a plea bargain away from the presidency [...]
Of course Mike Pence is running for president!"

MORE fake news and fake statements, meant to breed doubt in people's
minds. No one's going to offer Pence a "plea bargain" for anything.
Mueller's investigation will uncover nothing on Trump, but will open a
Pandora's Box for Democrats.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <MPG.33f6b200d...@news.eternal-september.org>,

AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:

> Mike Pence knows he may be a plea bargain away from the presidency [...]
> Of course Mike Pence is running for president!

Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are talking to Meuller.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed

[SeaSnake]

On 8/11/2017 3:28 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are talking to Meuller.
>
> --

Having BOUGHT and PAID for him.

[Alan Baker]

How did they do that?

Who hired him as special counsel?

[SeaSnake]

On 8/11/2017 10:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-08-11 7:36 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>> On 8/11/2017 3:28 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are talking to
>>> Meuller.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Having BOUGHT and PAID for him.
>>
>>
>
> How did they do that?

In the swamp, duh.

> Who hired him as special counsel?

Who made that happen?

It's a Dem manufactured fake crisis.

They love their fake news too.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <omklil$ad6$2...@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

The same partisan Democrat AG who refuses to prosecute Clinton.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-11 9:56 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
> On 8/11/2017 10:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2017-08-11 7:36 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2017 3:28 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are talking
>>>> to Meuller.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Having BOUGHT and PAID for him.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How did they do that?
>
> In the swamp, duh.

Not really an answer?

>> Who hired him as special counsel?
>
> Who made that happen?

Who did make that happen?

>
> It's a Dem manufactured fake crisis.

How did they do that? Be specific.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-11 9:57 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <omklil$ad6$2...@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-08-11 7:36 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2017 3:28 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are talking to
>>>> Meuller.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Having BOUGHT and PAID for him.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How did they do that?
>>
>> Who hired him as special counsel?
>
> The same partisan Democrat AG who refuses to prosecute Clinton.
>

Factually incorrect.

[SeaSnake]

On 8/11/2017 10:57 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <omklil$ad6$2...@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-08-11 7:36 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2017 3:28 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are talking to
>>>> Meuller.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Having BOUGHT and PAID for him.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How did they do that?
>>
>> Who hired him as special counsel?
>
> The same partisan Democrat AG who refuses to prosecute Clinton.
>

Under the cloud of fake news the DNC implemented.

[SeaSnake]

On 8/11/2017 11:03 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-08-11 9:56 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>> On 8/11/2017 10:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2017-08-11 7:36 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2017 3:28 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are talking
>>>>> to Meuller.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Having BOUGHT and PAID for him.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How did they do that?
>>
>> In the swamp, duh.
>
> Not really an answer?

Twas.

>>> Who hired him as special counsel?
>>
>> Who made that happen?
>
> Who did make that happen?

DNC fake news.

>>
>> It's a Dem manufactured fake crisis.
>
> How did they do that? Be specific.

Fake news and scurrilous allegations and lies, duh.

[Alan Baker]

How did the DNC "implement" the US intelligence and law enforcement
agencies into coming forward with information that the Russians had
interfered with the US federal election?

Be specific.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-11 10:38 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
> On 8/11/2017 11:03 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2017-08-11 9:56 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2017 10:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2017-08-11 7:36 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2017 3:28 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are talking
>>>>>> to Meuller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Having BOUGHT and PAID for him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How did they do that?
>>>
>>> In the swamp, duh.
>>
>> Not really an answer?
> Twas.

Nope.

>
>
>>>> Who hired him as special counsel?
>>>
>>> Who made that happen?
>>
>> Who did make that happen?
>
> DNC fake news.
>

This fooled the US intelligence agencies and the FBI into declaring that
Russian interfered with the election, did it?

>>>
>>> It's a Dem manufactured fake crisis.
>>
>> How did they do that? Be specific.
>
> Fake news and scurrilous allegations and lies, duh.

That's not specific.

Guess you've got nothing.

[SeaSnake]

On 8/11/2017 11:46 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-08-11 10:38 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>> On 8/11/2017 11:03 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2017-08-11 9:56 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2017 10:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-08-11 7:36 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/11/2017 3:28 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are
>>>>>>> talking to Meuller.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having BOUGHT and PAID for him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How did they do that?
>>>>
>>>> In the swamp, duh.
>>>
>>> Not really an answer?
>> Twas.
>
> Nope.

Yep.

>>>>> Who hired him as special counsel?
>>>>
>>>> Who made that happen?
>>>
>>> Who did make that happen?
>>
>> DNC fake news.
>>
>
> This fooled the US intelligence agencies and the FBI into declaring that
> Russian interfered with the election, did it?

I believe so, yes.

In fact the DNC may well have used their own hacking tools to emulate
the Russians.

They're quite without conscience you know.

>>>>
>>>> It's a Dem manufactured fake crisis.
>>>
>>> How did they do that? Be specific.
>>
>> Fake news and scurrilous allegations and lies, duh.
>
> That's not specific.

It's factual.

> Guess you've got nothing.

All you have are denials and fake news.

[Alan Baker]

How'd they do that?

>
> In fact the DNC may well have used their own hacking tools to emulate
> the Russians.
>
> They're quite without conscience you know.

LOL!

>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a Dem manufactured fake crisis.
>>>>
>>>> How did they do that? Be specific.
>>>
>>> Fake news and scurrilous allegations and lies, duh.
>>
>> That's not specific.
>
> It's factual.
>
>> Guess you've got nothing.
>
> All you have are denials and fake news.

You've provided nothing but your suppositions with absolutely no
concrete support or evidence.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <omko1g$fuh$2...@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>

wrote:

> On 2017-08-11 9:57 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article <omklil$ad6$2...@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2017-08-11 7:36 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
> >>> On 8/11/2017 3:28 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> >>>> Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are talking to
> >>>> Meuller.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>
> >>> Having BOUGHT and PAID for him.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> How did they do that?
> >>
> >> Who hired him as special counsel?
> >
> > The same partisan Democrat AG who refuses to prosecute Clinton.
> >
>
> Factually incorrect.

Alternative factuallies.

[SeaSnake]

Stuxnet grade proxies is my estimation.

>>
>> In fact the DNC may well have used their own hacking tools to emulate
>> the Russians.
>>
>> They're quite without conscience you know.
>
> LOL!

I do not find it amusing.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a Dem manufactured fake crisis.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did they do that? Be specific.
>>>>
>>>> Fake news and scurrilous allegations and lies, duh.
>>>
>>> That's not specific.
>>
>> It's factual.
>>
>>> Guess you've got nothing.
>>
>> All you have are denials and fake news.
>
> You've provided nothing but your suppositions with absolutely no
> concrete support or evidence.

They've provided nothing but fake news and there are no indictments at all.

Deal.

[SeaSnake]

On 8/11/2017 12:36 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <omko1g$fuh$2...@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-08-11 9:57 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <omklil$ad6$2...@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-08-11 7:36 AM, SeaSnake wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2017 3:28 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> Democrats don't have to worry whether their associates are talking to
>>>>>> Meuller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Having BOUGHT and PAID for him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How did they do that?
>>>>
>>>> Who hired him as special counsel?
>>>
>>> The same partisan Democrat AG who refuses to prosecute Clinton.
>>>
>>
>> Factually incorrect.
>
> Alternative factuallies.
>

Meth whore psychobabble.

[Alan Baker]

And your estimation is based on what actual evidence?

>
>
>>>
>>> In fact the DNC may well have used their own hacking tools to emulate
>>> the Russians.
>>>
>>> They're quite without conscience you know.
>>
>> LOL!
>
> I do not find it amusing.

I find you very amusing.

>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a Dem manufactured fake crisis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How did they do that? Be specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fake news and scurrilous allegations and lies, duh.
>>>>
>>>> That's not specific.
>>>
>>> It's factual.
>>>
>>>> Guess you've got nothing.
>>>
>>> All you have are denials and fake news.
>>
>> You've provided nothing but your suppositions with absolutely no
>> concrete support or evidence.
>
> They've provided nothing but fake news and there are no indictments at all.

The US intelligence agency reports aren't fake news.

The many meetings with Russians that Trump aides and associates first
lied about, then admitted but lied some more about, then admitted to
more lies aren't fake news.

Deal.

[SeaSnake]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/01/which-dems-are-behind-the-fake-buzzfeed-story.php

How did the false dossier come into being? As I understand it based on
the reporting I’ve seen, political opponents of Trump hired a British
company headed by an ex-spy to investigate Trump’s dealings with Russia
and his conduct in that country. It’s been reported that originally
anti-Trump Republicans retained the company’s services [or those of the
company that used the British company], but once Trump became the
nominee, or presumptive nominee, Democrats paid the freight.

The investigation generated the dossier. The information contained
therein, or at least some of it, almost certainly was concocted, perhaps
by shady sources in Russia.

How did the false dossier enter into the political bloodstream? I assume
the dossier was provided by the British company to the Democratic
political enemies of Trump who at that point were paying for the
company’s services.

Presumably, these enemies then sought to get it into circulation, quite
possibly through the efforts of one of the company’s principles — the
one who is said to be a former spy with a decent track record. Trump’s
political enemies appear to have received an assist from one or more of
our intelligence agencies and then from BuzzFeed.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In fact the DNC may well have used their own hacking tools to
>>>> emulate the Russians.
>>>>
>>>> They're quite without conscience you know.
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> I do not find it amusing.
>
> I find you very amusing.

That's amusing.

>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a Dem manufactured fake crisis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How did they do that? Be specific.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fake news and scurrilous allegations and lies, duh.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not specific.
>>>>
>>>> It's factual.
>>>>
>>>>> Guess you've got nothing.
>>>>
>>>> All you have are denials and fake news.
>>>
>>> You've provided nothing but your suppositions with absolutely no
>>> concrete support or evidence.
>>
>> They've provided nothing but fake news and there are no indictments at
>> all.
>
> The US intelligence agency reports aren't fake news.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/12/media-bias-on-snooping-benefits-obama-over-trump/

Here’s a profoundly revealing passage from a front-page article in The
New York Times on Jan. 20, the day Mr. Trump was inaugurated:
“WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are
examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part
of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials
and associates of President-elect Donald Trump.”
The article says that “no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing” was found,
but here’s the kicker:
“One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped
communications had been provided to the White House.”
Whoa. “Wiretapped communications?” Isn’t that what Mr. Trump alleged?

> The many meetings with Russians that Trump aides and associates first
> lied about, then admitted but lied some more about, then admitted to
> more lies aren't fake news.

They're also not evidence of hacking or election tampering.

In fact:

http://www.businessinsider.com/magnitsky-act-russian-adoptions-donald-trump-jr-meeting-2017-7

Donald Trump Jr. said he met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
last June at Trump Tower to discuss compromising information she said
she had on Hillary Clinton, but was disappointed when she changed the
subject to Russia's adoption policy.

"It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information," Trump
Jr. said in a statement to the New York Times, and that the adoption
policy "was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially
helpful information were a pretext for the meeting."

Veselnitskaya would have had her own motivations for pivoting from
promises of dirt on Clinton to a discussion of Russia's adoption policy,
which was altered to bar American families from adopting Russian
children in retaliation for the signing of the Magnitsky Act in 2012.

The Magnitsky Act was passed to punish those suspected of being involved
in the death of Russian tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who uncovered a
$230 million tax fraud scheme in 2008 that implicated high-level Kremlin
officials and allies of President Vladimir Putin. The scheme quickly
snowballed into one of the biggest corruption scandals of Putin's tenure.

Magnitsky uncovered the scheme on behalf of the investment advisory firm
Hermitage Capital, which was at that point the largest investment firm
in Russia. Magnitsky was later thrown in jail by the same Interior
Ministry officers he testified against during criminal proceedings to
punish those involved in the tax scheme, Hermitage founder Bill Browder
recalled in 2015.

Magnitsky died in custody after being held for 358 days, and an
independent human-rights commission found he had been illegally arrested
and beaten. The Kremlin maintains that Magnitsky died of a heart attack.

"Since there was no possibility of getting justice for Sergei inside
Russia, I decided to seek justice outside of Russia," Browder wrote.
'That’s when I took his story to Washington."

> Deal.

No, YOU deal!