WWTBAM Bored

Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. But it sure looks like a grand jury just refused to indict Andrew McCabe. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. But it sure looks like a grand jury just refused to indict Andrew McCabe. --Bob

I don't know what's going to happen, bwbk, but this piece is once again reporting a pseudo event based on nothing but rumors of rumors. When will you learn? How many times did we hear Mueller and Rosenstein were going to be fired?
Before you post your bat phone shit, why don't you wait for something to actually happen?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. But it sure looks like a grand jury just refused to indict Andrew McCabe. --Bob

I don't know what's going to happen, bwbk, but this piece is once again reporting a pseudo event based on nothing but rumors of rumors. When will you learn? How many times did we hear Mueller and Rosenstein were going to be fired?
Before you post your bat phone shit, why don't you wait for something to actually happen?

Something did happen. Prosecutors told McCabe that they were going to charge him. Then they called the grand jury into session. It met. And they don't have an indictment in hand.

If prosecutors leave things as they are, that's all that will ever happen. Given Donny's efforts to use the Department of Justice to go after a political enemy, I consider this one helluva victory for the rule of law. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. But it sure looks like a grand jury just refused to indict Andrew McCabe. --Bob

I don't know what's going to happen, bwbk, but this piece is once again reporting a pseudo event based on nothing but rumors of rumors. When will you learn? How many times did we hear Mueller and Rosenstein were going to be fired?
Before you post your bat phone shit, why don't you wait for something to actually happen?

Something did happen. Prosecutors told McCabe that they were going to charge him. Then they called the grand jury into session. It met. And they don't have an indictment in hand.

If prosecutors leave things as they are, that's all that will ever happen. Given Donny's efforts to use the Department of Justice to go after a political enemy, I consider this one helluva victory for the rule of law. --Bob

At this point in time, bwbj, all these 'news' stories are speculation about rumors. That is a FACT. You may eventually be right, but right now you are doing a mueller again. It is pathetic that you are so sickly partisan and believe everything the media tells you, disregarding how wrong they have been about their past speculations.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: It is pathetic that you are so sickly partisan and believe everything the media tells you, disregarding how wrong they have been about their past speculations.

It's so convenient for you Flock to be able to cover your ears and yell Fake News any time Donald Trump tells you to.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: It is pathetic that you are so sickly partisan and believe everything the media tells you, disregarding how wrong they have been about their past speculations.

It's so convenient for you Flock to be able to cover your ears and yell Fake News any time Donald Trump tells you to.

SSS, c'mon now. I have given you the benefit of the doubt. Somewhat graciously, I might add. If you don't have anything more than this bullshit to add to the conversation, please don't bother. It's old. It's annoying and you have said the same fucking thing over and over and over again.
If it will help you I will state now and forever that I believe every word that emanates from trump and I am his biggest supporter. Ok? I have a trump banner on my house and I mow his name on my lawn in big letters so they can see it from airplanes. Is that enough for you?
Now can you come up with something new to troll me with? Please?

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. But it sure looks like a grand jury just refused to indict Andrew McCabe. --Bob

I don't know what's going to happen, bwbk, but this piece is once again reporting a pseudo event based on nothing but rumors of rumors. When will you learn? How many times did we hear Mueller and Rosenstein were going to be fired?
Before you post your bat phone shit, why don't you wait for something to actually happen?

Something did happen. Prosecutors told McCabe that they were going to charge him. Then they called the grand jury into session. It met. And they don't have an indictment in hand.

If prosecutors leave things as they are, that's all that will ever happen. Given Donny's efforts to use the Department of Justice to go after a political enemy, I consider this one helluva victory for the rule of law. --Bob

Once again, I don't have any idea what will happen. I am just puzzled by the fact that after the Mueller fiasco, and after all the times the MSM has created pseudo events ( A Mark Levin term, look it up) and drummed up their own speculation so it looks like fact, that BWBJ would do another victory dance when he knows nothing for sure. Anything and everything in this story is STILL only partisan reporters faithfully reporting partisan talking points. Whether they end up being right or wrong about the grand jury, that is still the case, not to mention the fact that grand jury deliberations are supposed to be secret.

It's Sunday, I haven't heard of anything more actually happening on this subject, but here's Andrew McCarthy saying the same thing I did last week, but he adds to it, as he has expertise and experience I don't have. Whether he speaks the truth about the reasons he gives, I don't know, but it is a different perspective and he is right that what BWBJ cites is speculation, just like I am. Has anyone from the MSM discussed any of the alternative reasoning he gives? I would guess not. Why not?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ ... ndictment/

Anyone would be doing themselves a favor by doing some critical thinking before citing anything originating from our intrepid press as FACTS or proof of anything. Our journalistic system is broken. There are very few real journalists anymore.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:but here's Andrew McCarthy saying the same thing I did last week, but he adds to it, as he has expertise and experience I don't have.

The fact that you and Andrew McCarthy feel the same way comes as no surprise. He's the one who thinks Bill Ayers wrote Obama's autobiography.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:but here's Andrew McCarthy saying the same thing I did last week, but he adds to it, as he has expertise and experience I don't have.

The fact that you and Andrew McCarthy feel the same way comes as no surprise. He's the one who thinks Bill Ayers wrote Obama's autobiography.

Nothing about the substance, as usual. If I were as shallow as you, I could troll every one of your posts with drivel like this to avoid having to defend my position. But come to think of it, this whole thread has nothing to do with you. I am making a point to BWBJ, not you. Why do you feel you have to add your worthless 2 cents to every post I make?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:but here's Andrew McCarthy saying the same thing I did last week, but he adds to it, as he has expertise and experience I don't have.

The fact that you and Andrew McCarthy feel the same way comes as no surprise. He's the one who thinks Bill Ayers wrote Obama's autobiography.

Nothing about the substance, as usual. If I were as shallow as you, I could troll every one of your posts with drivel like this to avoid having to defend my position. But come to think of it, this whole thread has nothing to do with you. I am making a point to BWBJ, not you. Why do you feel you have to add your worthless 2 cents to every post I make?

If you think you're making some kind of a point to anyone, you're mistaken. And as far as I'm concerned, sss is more than welcome to comment in this thread. Which I started. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Why do you feel you have to add your worthless 2 cents to every post I make?

Because you're wrong in the same way in almost every post you make.

Your point (which is the exact same point that Adolph Hitler made 80 years ago), is that "the media," which apparently includes every news source you don't like or that says anything negative about Trump, has a vendetta against Trump and thus goes around concocting stories about him. Therefore, nothing they say about him is true unless it meets some vague standard of yours which never seems to occur.

Instead, you place great faith in people like McCarthy and Levin, whose track record is far, far, far, worse than the mainstream media (that Ayers story being an easy-to-find example), simply because they agree with your own prejudices and predispositions and, in McCarthy's case at least, can write about them in a matter that sounds intelligent on the surface.

The gist of McCarthy's piece is that prosecutors rarely fail to get an indictment (which everyone agrees with), therefore, the story isn't true. That's a circular argument if I ever heard one.

It's Monday morning, and as far as I can see there's no definitive word on what the grand jury did or didn't do. Instead of addressing the actual issue I raised, BWBJ and SSS want to talk about Hitler and pointy stick me. Incredible minds.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:It's Monday morning, and as far as I can see there's no definitive word on what the grand jury did or didn't do. Instead of addressing the actual issue I raised, BWBJ and SSS want to talk about Hitler and pointy stick me. Incredible minds.

Grand juries don't announce the fact that they didn't indict anyone. Nor, for that matter, do they announce they did indict anyone. It's up to prosecutors to make those announcements if they choose to do so. And since a grand jury's failure to indict doesn't reflect well on a prosecutor, it's understandable why they would not choose to publicize the fact.

Grand juries don't announce the fact that they didn't indict anyone. Nor, for that matter, do they announce they did indict anyone.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Why do you feel you have to add your worthless 2 cents to every post I make?

Because you're wrong in the same way in almost every post you make.

Your point (which is the exact same point that Adolph Hitler made 80 years ago), is that "the media," which apparently includes every news source you don't like or that says anything negative about Trump, has a vendetta against Trump and thus goes around concocting stories about him. Therefore, nothing they say about him is true unless it meets some vague standard of yours which never seems to occur.

Instead, you place great faith in people like McCarthy and Levin, whose track record is far, far, far, worse than the mainstream media (that Ayers story being an easy-to-find example), simply because they agree with your own prejudices and predispositions and, in McCarthy's case at least, can write about them in a matter that sounds intelligent on the surface.

The gist of McCarthy's piece is that prosecutors rarely fail to get an indictment (which everyone agrees with), therefore, the story isn't true. That's a circular argument if I ever heard one.

Here is the opinion piece which, I guess, is the source of your epithet against McCarthy, who has a different perspective than you.

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... the_1.html

So what is McCarthy's crime? He sees some truth in that article? Did he outright accuse Ayres of writing it for Obama? The writer of the article didn't go that far, as far as I can tell. And if he did, so what? Is he not entitled to his opinion? Are you not entitled to disagree with his opinion? And if you do, can you argue why you don't instead of just denigrating him and discrediting anything he says because you disagree with his opinion? It is like the quote I posted before, paraphrased as it's impossible to debate with anyone who cannot understand that other people have different perspectives.

For me, I know of McCarthy by name, but the only reason I cited an article from him was to show that someone else came to the same conclusion that I did, AFTER I stated my opinion. And, since he makes his living at this sort of thing (Although he may well be biased as well, so I don't take his words as the bible truth, as I've stated), he probably knows more about what's happening than either you or BWBJ. Just from a different perspective than the person who wrote the article that BWBJ is dancing around with joy.

As for Levin, the only reason his name came up was I was giving him attribution credit for the term 'pseudo-event', which I believe accurately describes this situation.

Are you able at all to do any critical reasoning before you mount your attacks? Or at least give some indication that you have even read what I posted?