Offthemat

Did he say Trump needed a big ballroom to hold his big balls?

Did she say she was a dandelion or a dandy lying liar?

Yes. That technique was used extensively by all of the usual suspects, and even Jimmy Carter publicly claimed that Trump was an illegitimate president.

They made the collusion claims publicly.

I think the walls are closing in.

I agree that the earlier assessments were accurate and approved by all the IC agencies and the last one wasn’t. The last one was fiction. The plot was by Obama and Comey, Brennan, and Clapper were the editors. They couldn’t even get their own senior analysts to sign off on it. Yet they put it out and even though there was no evidence of Putin’s preference for Trump, they used it to promote the idea that not only was there a preference, but there had been collusion. And today, after Muler, Durham, the IG, and Tulsi’s releases, there is no doubt about what happened. The only question is who will be held to account and what that will entail.

Sorry, but you’re dupid if you think I’ll fall for your misdirection, the second one you’ve attempted in this thread. The IA that the IC was tasked with producing by Obama was one which would say their purpose was to help Trump. There were only handpicked members of four of the eighteen intelligence groups involved, and senior analysts disagreed with the final assessment. Brennan, Clapper, and Comey directly involving themselves in producing the assessment, insisting on using junk for intelligence, mislabeling what it represented, is going to be their downfall. If you’d read the reports and releases you could make more informed posts, and maybe argue less about points that were never raised.

https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Russia-Hoax-Memo-and-Timeline_revisited.pdf

Trump most certainly was involved in declassifying documents and blessing, if not directing, the agencies cooperation in the inquiry. Nobody has ever said that Russia didn’t attempt to mess with the election. What the documents show is that Obama rejected the IC assessment that said their objective was not to help any particular candidate for one that claimed they were trying to help Trump.

Biden was the first, outside of Hiliary’s campaign, to claim collusion.

It seems, if I remember correctly, that he had a part in directing the Dept. of Education to pay them.

And then there are the critics.

Part of the problem in Minnesota: “When the camera was turned off, I asked Joe if he had heard from Governor Walz or Attorney General Ellison thanking him for his work on the case. He responded: “No comment.”“ https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/08/feeding-our-fraud-a-landmark-sentence.php

Are you sure you want to delve into what that would be? A lot of scholarly people can’t agree on it.

Joe Thompson has been quite busy in Minnesota with at least three separate fraud investigations that I have followed on Powerline Blog. The current one is for a state program that was supposed to help people who had difficulty obtaining housing. Housing Assistance. Again, millions fraudulently charged for non-existent aid, committed by predominantly Somalians. The. Feeding Our Future fraud had a white woman at the top. When questions were raised she, naturally, claimed racism. It took two trials to convict all who didn’t plead guilty.

If she wins in a fair election then the people will have made their choice. That she has expressed a reluctance, or doubt, for her entitlement, could spell a refreshing break and a better adherence to the Constitution’s original concept.

Pretty weak defense, especially after the E Jean Carroll case. Ongoing conspiracies extend the timeframe to the most recent activity. All to be decided by a court. The reluctance of the Legacy Media to cover the information that’s been released will only further erode the little confidence they have left. So much is being exposed, especially about Hiliary and Ukraine, and how much the Russians were aware of the corruption, while the Legacy Media played their role in hiding the truth and advancing the hoax.

69% Agree: ‘RussiaGate’ Requires Accountability Monday, August 04, 2025 In the wake of revelations about the so-called “RussiaGate” scandal, more than two-thirds of voters agree with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that there must be “accountability” for any crimes committed. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it’s likely that members of President Barack Obama’s national security team committed crimes when they manipulated and manufactured intelligence to promote a false narrative about Russia and Donald Trump, including 37% who consider it Very Likely. Forty-one percent (41%) don’t think it’s likely crimes were committed by Obama administration officials, including 28% who say it’s Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.) https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration_second_term/69_agree_russiagate_requires_accountability

Overheard from drive-through speaker: “I’ll have a double quarter pounder with cheese, a large fries, and a Diet Coke.

They have assisted suicide there.

Is she in Canada?

Matt Taibbi eviscerates The New York Times. Good read. Open Letter to the Columbia Journalism Review, on the Atrocious New York Times The ostensible high priests of journalism should be able to detect the difference between passable coverage and epic, historic failure https://www.racket.news/p/open-letter-to-the-columbia-journalism

You should have kept your eyes on your marbles.

Nobody’ll beat you up for it?

Another example of ignorance of the constitution you claim to have sworn to protect and defend. You didn’t know what you were doing then, and you don’t know what you’re talking about now. “Securing an indictment from a grand jury is an important stage in the federal criminal justice system. Without one, prosecutors are unable to bring charges against an individual and pursue a conviction on behalf of the people.“ https://www.law.uw.edu/news-events/news/2024/what-does-it-mean-to-be-indicted-by-a-grand-jury