Devastating, really? It depends on what the meaning of "devastating" is:
"When I say devastating, I mean it's going to paint a picture that's going to be politically very devastating. I still don't think it's going to make a criminal case."I looked up "devastating" in the OED and thought it was funny that it said "Frequently fig., esp. in trivial or hyperbolical use: very effective or upsetting; astounding, overwhelming, ‘stunning’...."
Especially in trivial or hyperbolical use.... From the OED's historical examples:
1925 New Yorker 8 Aug. 4/2 Not since the Tango provided luscious livelihoods for many svelte youths has so devastating a dance agitated the town....
1927 H. T. Lowe-Porter tr. T. Mann Magic Mountain (London ed.) I. v. 378 Everything, whether in jest or earnest, was ‘devastating’, the bob-run, the sweet for dinner, her own temperature.
1933 E. Shanks Enchanted Village ix. 133 Oh yes, poor old Julian—I think, to be honest, that he's a devastating bore.
1936 R. Lehmann Weather in Streets i. 11 Oh, darling have you got to go? How devastating.
পোস্টগুলি
২২০টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 220 এর 201 – থেকে 220Robert Cook,
We are agreed that you are an idiot. Take yes for an answer.
Howard,
As somebody who never voted for a Bush, regardless of given name, I never trusted the them to get much right. And I was not disappointed. I do not share what I expect is the glee with which certain Leftist Collectivists report the U.S. has not won. The enemy of your enemy wants to kill you and destroy all you hold dear. (for some definitions of you)
We didn't learn the lesson with Iraq either one might blame Noah feldman, then removing Qaddafi who was a relatively moderate figure.
Yes he supported plo ira brigette rossi once upon a team, the lead figure who had defected to the opposition general younis on order from Bel hadj other al queda chieftain.
Imagine had we given real logistical support to massoud in the months before September 11th, against the taliban
> Imagine had we given real logistical support to Massoud
Imagine if Bill Clinton wasn't the sort of guy who boasted about passing up an opportunity to take out Bin Laden.
The meat of Mueller’s report will be the abstract—the one page summary sent to the media. Full of damning innuendo and loaded passive-voice non-accusation accusations, none of it substantiated by anything in the report part of the report, it will be deployed to do maximum smear damage. The idea is to make impeachment somehow palatable to the country at large. It has to overcome the obstacle of having no reasonable basis for impeachment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOgFZfRVaww
If it were "devastating", why didn't he release it before the election?
The genius of President Trump appointing Whittacker as the interim AG, is the fact that he has the power to seal Muellers fairy tale dossier. Whittacker is in power for 210 days, about June 6th, 2019. Dems can scream all they want, but they have no leverage against Wittacker. All he has to do is declare the crimes enumerated in the charging documents have been investigated and lacked evidence to pursue. I have a hard time seeing the devastation from my vantage point.
Dems can go nuts investigating President Trump and his administration. They have a problem, in that the Obama deep state officials have refused subpoenas from congress, AG Holder, AG Lynch, FBI director Comey. All have rejected supboenas to appear and testify, or if they do, refuse to comment on privileged communication. Precedent's a bitch.
Blogger GRW3 said...
If you don’t think Trumps tax returns were searched six ways to Sunday after Trump brought up the birther point then you don’t understand the Obama deep state. If there was something, it would have been released during the campaign."
Of course they were and of course they are. His returns were enormously complex between the K 1's and the numerous corporate entities and LLC's and no doubt trusts and GRATS and other vehicles even if was never in politics or ever expressed any opinion on anything the IRS would be poring over them. If for no other reason just to conclude the amounts claimed due are correct.
As for Mueller and the his report, considering he is the target of the investigation and that he is president, he should use his authority to order the full release of the report. A lot of people will be embarrassed to say the least but Trump isn't likely to be the one with the most egg on his face. Dollars to donuts it will be a boatload of Democrats and DC insiders that will be. Further upthread someone posted a lengthy comment why it couldn't be released, I won't argue the legal points but since Trump is both the head of the government and the target of the investigation if he orders the complete release who will have standing to go to court and stop the complete release?
I don't always agree with Dershowitz but I do respect him. In this matter, it is as others have pointed out, difficult to believe there is anything devastating if it hasn't leaked.
If the Special counsel was investigating Russian interference in the election, and failed to investigate both parties it is not valid. The Russians took out pro-Hillary and pro-Trump Facebook ads, they even had pro-Bernie coloring book images. It has been well-established that Hillary's campaign used a foreign operative to gather intelligence, and some of the fake intelligence was from Russian operatives. The Hillary campaign KNEW this, and used this fiction to collude with Comey and others to push it to the media, and to obtain wiretaps on their opponents.
So far, Trump's involvement with the Russians was a brief meeting to gain intel on Hillary which they didn't solicit, not paying for manufactured Russian dirt.
What’s devastating these days?
Congressmen who beat women?
Treasury Secretaries who don’t pay their taxes?
Attorney Generals who burn innocent women and children to death?
Secretaries of State who enrich themselves while leaking the nation’s secrets?
Presidents who who ejaculate on the interns?
IRS employees who investigate political opponents?
Handing over billions in cash without Senate approval to the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism?
None of these were devastating.
Worth repeating.
And Presidents who suborn perjury?
Still waiting for the list of congresspeople for whom hush money was paid out for sexual assault / discrimination / harassment victims. Seems to be okay to use taxpayer funds to pay off victims when it's congresspeople grabbing them by the genitals.
If the worst thing the report came out with is that Trump jaywalked once, Inga will be here claiming complete vindication, and the House will proceed to impeach. Because they are that dishonest and that crazy, and they think everyone else is that stupid.
The precipitating reason for the invasion was that the Taliban "refused" to turn bin Lade over to us. This is not so. They simply asked for evidence to show bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks before handing him over.
You have to be a really special snow flake to think that this makes sense.
"Are you claiming bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11, Cookie?"
No. Where do you infer that?
"Imagine had we given real logistical support to massoud in the months before September 11th, against the taliban"
What makes you think this would have changed anything? The Taliban were not co-conspirators or participants in or planners or funders of 9/11. The men who planned and carried out the attacks were in different parts of the world. If the Taliban had been pushed out of power prior to 9/11, there's no reason to think it would have had any braking effect on the attacks.
Trump report = devastating but not criminal
Clinton reporting = criminal but not devastating. She's protected by the Maddow Media class(D).
Private Server for hidden international Clinton cash = no biggie!
Stay away from the RIVAL!
"No. Where do you infer that?"
Oh, I see. From my question as to whether the Bush administration did or did not have any evidence bin Laden was involved with 9/11. Well, that is a valid question: what actual evidence did they have at that time, immediately post-9/11, of bin Laden's involvement? If they did have evidence--and they may very well have had--why wouldn't they provide it? Because they'd rather just invade the country and show the world our power, that we don't have to answer to anyone, that we do as we will? Well, our futile, going-on two decades' long war-and-occupation-for-no-purpose in Afghanistan shows how weak we are. (Unless our real purpose for being there is something other than our purported reasons, for one example, to have military near Russia's borders.)
Blogger Original Mike said...
Are you claiming bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11, Cookie?
"Officially, the government maintains that the mastermind of 9/11 was one Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. . . . Indeed, the government believes officially that neither Mohammed nor any of his associates were ‘members’ of al-Qaeda (whatever that might mean) before 1996" . . . . Yet Mohammed and his group "had the idea, the capacity, and the resources to attack the World Trade Center in 1993, and to use airliners as weapons in 1995. . . . Factor out bin Laden, and 9/11 still happens" . . . .
Mueller report will be 'devastating' for the president.
So Dershowitz was right and Nelson Cunningham of the WaPo is wrong as we see from today's Mueller news:
Mueller has guaranteed that he gets to issue a public report by dumping on uncooperative Paul Manafort revoking all deals with this uncontrollable liar. Paulie is off to double digit sentences, about which reports must be written and Trump and Whitaker cannot stop the legal proceedings. Speculation that the reason that the Special Counsel requested a 10 day delay for finalizing Manafort's status was to get the official lies signed by Trump on the open book answers to Mueller questions.
Whatever information that Trump was getting from conman Manafort was obviously influenced by the kind of questions that Paulie was required to answer. Obviously Trump's lawyers had not been invited to the Don and Paul Party - so they went along with the limited questions answered in writing.
As for whether or not Trump can be sued in Civil court, under RICO perhaps, was verified today when Justice Saliann Scarpulla ruled that a sitting president can face a civil lawsuit in state court for actions not taken in his official capacity. This ruling which involves NY State vs Trump Foundation is consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Clinton v. Jones .
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন