mspart

He's a fighter. Very good to see his progress. He has a positive outlook on life and that carries through to what it takes for his remarkable recovery. I'll bet he is just happy to be home even though life is still a challenge for him. mspart

You should be able to get $1000 for those. Depending on the sweat and toe jam of course. mspart

Well, they were funny. Letterman was funny and weird and had funny and weird guests. It was fun to watch. Late night TV is no longer fun to watch. Streaming probably has something to do with that, but they are just not funny anymore. And with https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/alex-christy/2025/07/01/study-late-night-comedy-shows-begin-2025-99-percent-guests-being For the men of the late night comedy talk shows, the first half of 2025 was an instance of history repeating itself. According to a NewsBusters study, 99 percent of their political guests were on the left, matching the result for the last six months of 2024. The grand totals were 106 liberals and Democrats compared to one conservative. The study looked at the five daily late night comedy shows: ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers and The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and Comedy Central’s The Daily Show from January 6 through June 30. The genre is dying and that is because they have excluded half the potential audience. mspart

I think this is true. I don't see them going after Obama, although it looks like he orchestrated it from the descriptions I've read. mspart

I don't think that is what he was saying. I think he was saying that this won't touch Obama but may the others for the false testimony they gave to Congress. Emphasis is on may. Obviously to your point we won't know until charges are filed. And depending on your thoughts on this, it is either likely to happen or unlikely to happen. So wait we will. mspart

Bragg moved on cases and was successful 37% of the time. So what you are saying is that he is a horrible DA. And you would be correct. mspart

Then explain the low success rate? You take a case to court you better have overwhelming evidence. Obviously they do not. And in most cases it shouldn't be that hard. They are not trying by design. I don't know how you can argue otherwise. Woke DAs across the country are doing this, it isn't just Bragg. mspart

This could work!! mspart

https://nypost.com/2025/07/19/us-news/manhattan-da-quietly-pulls-data-dashboard-amid-slipping-convictions/ Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s conviction rate has plunged every year since he took office — and he’s hiding the ugly numbers from the public, The Post has learned. Just 35% of felony cases — 6,871 out of 19,602 crimes — ended in convictions last year, down from 37% in 2023, 40% in 2022, and 42% in 2021 before Bragg took office, according to data from the state Division of Criminal Justice. And those numbers are way down from 2019, the last year before New York’s woke discovery reform laws took effect, when 64% of felonies resulted in convictions. Laying an egg on purpose. What a waste of taxpayer money to win 35 of 100 cases where the previous AG won almost twice as many. Bragg is not interested in justice. He is interested in equity. mspart

Succinct answer. Different than RVs. I disagree in that I don't think manufacturing intel data that goes against the data collected over the past 6 months with the express intent to stymie the incoming president is in the President's duties as put forth in the Constitution. But I can see where it could be argued otherwise. Argued unsuccessfully in my opinion, but still there could be an argument. mspart

Thank you for a straight answer RV. Much appreciated. mspart

FIFY. mspart

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/07/22/silence-of-the-lambs-the-media-ignores-declassified-documents-on-the-manufacturing-of-the-russian-conspiracy/ More From Turley of the legality here: I disagree with the use of the charge of treason being thrown around with this release. Based on this evidence, it would be hard to make a criminal case against Obama, let alone the specific charge of treason. However, there are good-faith allegations raised about prior congressional testimony of key players in the Obama Administration. There may be viable criminal allegations ranging from perjury to obstruction to making false statements to federal investigators. It is too early to gauge the basis for possible criminal charges. However, the release of this new evidence is both historically and legally significant. There is now a legitimate concern over a conspiracy to create this false narrative to undermine the incoming Administration. It proved successful in derailing the first Trump Administration. By the time the allegations were debunked, much of the first term had been exhausted. That is worthy of investigation and the public has a right to expect transparency on these long withheld documents. The silence of the legacy media is hardly surprising, given the key role the media played in spreading these false claims. Most media outlets find themselves in an uncomfortable position, having fostered an alleged conspiracy for years. Most reporters are not keen on making a case against themselves in spreading of these false claims. So he seems to be saying Obama is in the clear but those that lied to Congress may not be. It is too early to speculate on possible criminal charges, but this release of documents in historically and legally significant. I agree. mspart

Let's just assume that the allegations are true, just as a thought exercise. Does the SCOTUS decision protect Obama? That is the question that no one has answered yet. It doesn't matter if there will be a prosecution, indictment, or anything. Assuming the allegation is true, does the SCOTUS decision protect Obama? mspart

I was fortunate to go to Goodwill games in Seattle and saw US/Russia. John Smith wrestled there, but I was younger and don't really remember anyone else that was there. I could look it up, but what I do remember is the US won that round and it was a really fun time watching that. mspart

That's it exactly. And that's why the story died. Infantano nor FIFA are complaining. The only ones complaining are those with a beef against Trump. A story with no legs. mspart

If it gets to it, that is where it will go. But they said a president is immune from prosecution as long as he/she is doing constitutional duties. Domestic post-election interference is not one of those duties I'm guessing. The wrestling board can guess and discuss what the SCOTUS meant with the decision, else why have the board? That's what we do, in the most civil way possible of course. mspart

That's the thing Gabbard's report shows is that Comey et al, lied before Congress. That's a big no no as I understand it. mspart

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5408024-elizabeth-warren-adam-schiff-stephen-colbert-late-show-cancellation/ “CBS canceled Colbert’s show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump — a deal that looks like bribery,” Warren wrote Thursday on social platform X. “America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons.” “If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better,” [Schiff] wrote. Yes, I did read the AI and when I do, I quote it as such. The Hill also reported on this. How will they get America to know the reason for the cancellation of the show next spring? An investigation is how. That is how the math works out. When a congress person is so concerned about a topic and says America deserves to know, they are talking about an investigation. At least that is what it means to me. If not to you, ok then. mspart

Yep it is a wait and see situation now. But the question isn't about wait and see, it is about the SCOTUS decision and how it would impact Obama if he were indicted. Would it protect him or not? mspart

Then maybe the players have a point. mspart

Then why is this a dead story if it is of international intrigue? Late night should be having a hey day continually on this one. I don't see anything on it except this thread. Maybe the wrestling community is way ahead of the pack. mspart

What? If the allegations from the Obama documents show that they tried to interfere with the incoming president and his team, that would be grounds for prosecution I would think. Where in the law is that allowed? Don't get me wrong, there will be no prosecution of Obama. If anything they will go after Comey and Clapper and maybe some other underlings. Obama is presumably safe. But that is not the question. The question is if the SCOTUS decision protects him from this or not. I say it doesn't as hindering an incoming President is not part of the Presidential duties outlined in the Constitution. mspart

AI Overview Democrats in Congress and other public figures have raised concerns and called for an investigation into the cancellation of "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" by CBS . These calls for investigation stem from the timing of the cancellation, which occurred just days after Colbert publicly criticized CBS's parent company, Paramount, for settling a lawsuit with former President Donald Trump. The settlement involved Paramount paying Trump $16 million to resolve a lawsuit he filed over the editing of an interview on the CBS News program "60 Minutes". Many believe that the cancellation of Colbert's show, a frequent critic of Trump, might be a politically motivated decision rather than a purely financial one, as CBS and Paramount have claimed. For example, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts questioned the settlement's nature, calling it potentially "bribery" and calling for a federal investigation. Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington has also stated that "People deserve to know if this is a politically motivated attack on free speech" Warren called for an investigation. Jayapal says the people deserve to know... How will they know without an investigation? Presumably, the admin won't go after CBS for this. So it will be up to Congress to go after this. How do they do that? Holding hearings and investigating. It's called deductive reasoning based on what is said and what is said means. mspart

It might be true FIFA president gave the trophy to Trump in the Oval office and it might be possible that he was authorized to keep a medal. I don't know and you don't either. Yet you assume and base a whole thread on that assumption. mspart