Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 22, 2019

A charity run by the wife of Rep. Elijah Cummings received millions from special interest groups and corporations that had business before her husband's committee and could have been used illegally, according to an IRS complaint filed by an ethics watchdog group. Cummings, 68, a Maryland Democrat, is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. His wife, Maya Rockeymoore, 48, is the chairman of the Maryland Democratic Party and briefly ran in the state's gubernatorial race last year. The couple married in 2008. Cummings was once heavily in debt -- in part due to hefty child support payments to his first wife and two other women he had children with -- but his financial situation has improved considerably over the past decade.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

If only Hillary had won ....

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anybody who has ever supported Trump has no right to complain about pay to play.

#1 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-05-22 08:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What about Trump?!?

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-22 09:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's cute that Mackris cares about corruption NOW.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-05-22 09:14 AM | Reply

@2 illegitimate president bucket of ---- paid himself $1.3 million in campaign funds

See that was easy

#4 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-22 09:28 AM | Reply

So you can shove your ------- whataboutism up your ass.

Posted by Nixon at 2019-05-22 09:09 AM

Hilarious. Nothing but whataboutism on this thread.

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-22 09:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Anybody who has ever supported Trump has no right to complain about pay to play.
#1 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

Who is complaining? I am pointing out that if Hillary was in charge all would be forgiven.

Meaning, for the idiots out there, those that supported Clintons have no right to complain about Trump.

It's cute that Mackris cares about corruption NOW.
#3 | POSTED BY NIXON

I don't care and neither do you apparently, kinda sucks your guy is getting investigated for it though?

Winning!!

#4 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

liar, that was easy.

#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-22 11:30 AM | Reply

- Cummings, 68, a Maryland Democrat, is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Of course he is. and screaming that Trump is a crook.

LOL

#7 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-22 11:39 AM | Reply

Anybody can be accused of a crime.

Let's see the evidence.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-22 11:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Speaking of Pay to Play Mackris....

"President Donald Trump's latest personal financial disclosure was released Thursday afternoon, showing that Trump, who already owed more money than any other president in history, borrowed millions more in 2018 from a bank whose CEO won a federal appointment months later."

www.motherjones.com

#9 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-05-22 11:44 AM | Reply

Fat Andy Mattress hasn't learned yet if you live in a glass house, you really shouldn't throw stones.
....But seeing as he was handed everything in life and hasn't worked a day in his life it's understandable why he couldn't see his hypocrisy from the safety of his father's rent free basement lair.

#10 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-05-22 10:14 PM | Reply

"A charity run by the wife of Rep. Elijah Cummings received millions from special interest groups and corporations that had business before her husband's committee and could have been used illegally"

No Republican complaints when it involved a SCOTUS Judge and his wife. And "could have been used illegally"?!? Are you schitting me??? What kind of moron reporting is this?

"the potential for corruption is "off the charts.""

So this is based on a complaint to the IRS. Nothing uncovered, nothing proven, not even any specific allegation...just feces thrown at a wall.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-22 10:23 PM | Reply

#9

Poor deflection noted.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-22 10:44 PM | Reply

Hilarious. Nothing but whataboutism on this thread.

#5 | Posted by nullifidian

The thread is a whataboutism.

Unless you --------- want to hold Trump to the same standard you're just transparent morons flapping your Trump fluffing lips in the wind.

Here, let me show you how it's done...

If this is true and it is illegal then investigate and prosecute. If it's true and no illegal but highly immoral I hope this asshat gets booted next election.

See how hard that was? Never mind. You braindead ----- are long past understanding integrity or principles.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-22 11:29 PM | Reply

Who is complaining? I am pointing out that if Hillary was in charge all would be forgiven.

Meaning, for the idiots out there, those that supported Clintons have no right to complain about Trump.

--------.

---- you.

Just admit you're a Trump fluffing POS and drop any pretenses of respectful behavior.

I don't care and neither do you apparently, kinda sucks your guy is getting investigated for it though?

Winning!!

You're such a POS.

What a lonely, bitter person you must be to be so loathsome and dishonest.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-22 11:31 PM | Reply

If Trump has done anything illegal, I'm all for prosecuting.

But I believe this is a political witchhunt where Democrats just want to dig into anything and everything in Hope's of stumbling across a crime, or at the very least, something to tar him with.

It's a fishing expedition.

#15 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-22 11:33 PM | Reply

You're such a POS.
What a lonely, bitter person you must be to be so loathsome and dishonest.
#14 | Posted by jpw

lol

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-22 11:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

But I believe this is a political witchhunt where Democrats just want to...

reality doesn't support this statement, compadre.

Nor does it support your assertions of being a jaded Dem.

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-22 11:51 PM | Reply

You're such a POS.
What a lonely, bitter person you must be to be so loathsome and dishonest.
#14 | Posted by jpw

lol

#16 | Posted by nullifidian

You mistake my utter contempt for bitterness.

You're really just a dishonest POS. Sorry to break it to you, but that is that.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-22 11:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Of course you're more than willing to point out where or how I am wrong.

Please, do. I am all ears.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-22 11:53 PM | Reply

Hes at the bottom of the bottle.

#20 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-22 11:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hes at the bottom of the bottle.

#20 | Posted by SheepleSchism

You have nothing.

Which means you now you're a POS.

How does it feel to be soulless? Or do you even feel it?

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 12:00 AM | Reply

Of course you flag it FF for Nulli. Bottom bitches always do that.

Care to answer the question in #19? Or do you just have more BS to show how worthless you are?

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 12:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Come at me, bro.

#23 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-23 12:08 AM | Reply

--Hes at the bottom of the bottle.

Probably kicks his dog after an evening of getting sloshed and angry.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-23 12:08 AM | Reply

Probably kicks his dog after an evening of getting sloshed and angry.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian

Nope.

Just you. Because you deserve to be kicked.

Care to answer the question in post 19?

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 12:10 AM | Reply

Come at me, bro.

#23 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Start with post 19.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 12:10 AM | Reply

Awwww Nulli NW flagged your post.

I guess he's done whining about ad hominem?

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 12:11 AM | Reply

Well?

Chirp chirp...

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 12:18 AM | Reply

That's what I thought.

Pathetic. POSes.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 12:41 AM | Reply

I just got home from babysitting some fiber splicers. I was posting from my phone earlier.

reality doesn't support this statement, compadre.
Nor does it support your assertions of being a jaded Dem.
#17 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-05-22 11:51 PM | FLAG:

Of course you're more than willing to point out where or how I am wrong.
Please, do. I am all ears.
#19 | POSTED BY JPW

My statement can be summed by: It's a fishing expedition.

It is what it is. All anyone can allude to is 'crimes' of some sort. They vary from accuser to accuser, but the gist is that Trump is involved in crimes and treason, obstruction and being an asshat. The fact of the matter is, JPW, if any evidence existed to support any crimes at all, 1) Mueller would have indicted, and 2) a case for crimes committed would already be laid out on CNN, WaPo, NYT on a 4-page spread.

Dems want access to Trumps taxes, business records, testimonies from various aides because

A: They currently have nothing
B: They hope and expect to FIND something, and
C: They're CERTAIN crimes exist in the documents and testimonies that they don't have.

That's the very definition of a fishing expedition. They've built a fish story, now they need a fish.

I'm telling you, they might find a minnow, but that ain't no fish. Although I expect, you and Danforth will bring a giant magnifying glass and tell us how big it is.

#30 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-23 01:10 AM | Reply

The fact of the matter is, JPW, if any evidence existed to support any crimes at all, 1) Mueller would have indicted

Wrong, you ignorant ----.

This is why I hold you in utter contempt and treat you as such.

You can't even describe the facts properly. In fact, I wonder if you misrepresent them on purpose you're so consistent in getting it wrong.

Dems want access to Trumps taxes, business records, testimonies from various aides because

Because he has a loooooooong history of unethical and borderline criminal behavior.

But then again, if you're willing to misrepresent the Mueller report's findings you're not gonna see this either.

Although I expect, you and Danforth will bring a giant magnifying glass and tell us how big it is.

Only because you tools looked at (or likely didn't...) the Mueller report and claimed it was a minnow.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 01:29 AM | Reply

"My statement can be summed by: It's a fishing expedition."

So?
~Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-23 01:31 AM | Reply

Enjoy the fishing trip. The forecast is for rough seas.

So far, no fish have been spotted.

#33 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-23 01:32 AM | Reply

"they might find a minnow"

Is tax evasion a minnow?
Is self-dealing from a charity a minnow?
Is money laundering a minnow?

Just asking ahead of time. We don't want you to move the goalposts later on.

Also, for the record, if this were HRC, the same idiots claiming "minnow" would be claiming "blue whale".

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-23 01:33 AM | Reply

"no fish have been spotted."

There are over a dozen active investigations. That's a lot of "lines" in the water. Expect the haul to eventually break the daily catch limit.

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-23 01:35 AM | Reply

It's cute that Mackris cares about corruption NOW.

#3 | Posted by Nixon

More like "Mackerel"

This place begins to stink like dead fish when he/she starts blabbering with ridiculous comments.

#36 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-23 01:37 AM | Reply

So far, no fish have been spotted.

#33 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Sure...by the unicorn vessels.

Only a fool could make your statement with a straight face.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 01:40 AM | Reply

This place begins to stink like dead fish when he/she starts blabbering with ridiculous comments.

#36 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Yeah it's funny how rcade has drawn such a hard line about climate change but allow such blatant lying about things like the Mueller report.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 01:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's a lot of "lines" in the water.
#35 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Remember how Stormy and Avenatti were such a big catch?

Cohen? Pompudompulus? Hacker Indictments? Russian Oligarchs? Flynn?

Each one was supposed to be the be-all-end-all. No fish yet. But a whopper of a fish story.

See you on the dock.

#39 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-23 01:50 AM | Reply

Which you'll claim isn't the dock.

Piss off, hack.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 01:53 AM | Reply

"Remember how Stormy and Avenatti were such a big catch?"

No.

"Cohen?"

Yea, he swore he committed a crime at the direction of Donald Trump.

"Russian Oligarchs?"

Yeah...Mueller concluded Team Trump was too stupid to know they were breaking the law.

"Flynn?"

Still open, especially the question of why Trump kept Flynn 17 days after he discovered Flynn might be compromised.

"No fish yet."

It's very early in the day. The sun has barely come up on the investigations. And there are already dozens of fish in the holding tank.

"...at the dock"

Be sure to bring your filet knife. Most of these fish have rotted from the head down.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-23 01:58 AM | Reply

#38 | Posted by jpw

He cleaned up the ----- trolling, now it's time to be rid of trolls like Sheeple and AndreaMackerel who lie every post and only come here to make trouble.

#42 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-23 03:27 AM | Reply

"Baltimore...we're the new Detroit!"

#43 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-05-23 08:28 AM | Reply

"President Donald Trump's ...#9 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-05-22 11:44 AM |
shove your ------- whataboutism up your ass. Posted by Nixon at 2019-05-22 09:09 AM
You ignorant hypocrite

Only because you tools looked at (or likely didn't...) the Mueller report and claimed it was a minnow.
#31 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 01:29 AM

It was no minnow. It was no evidence of conspiracy and insufficient evidence of obstruction-of-justice to press charges.

There are over a dozen active investigations. That's a lot of "lines" in the water. Expect the haul to eventually break the daily catch limit.
#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-23 01:35 AM |

Thanks for backing up Sheep's claim that it was a fishing expedition.

#44 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-23 11:15 AM | Reply

and insufficient evidence of obstruction-of-justice to press charges.

Incorrect.

The report explicitly states that they could not and would not exonerate Trump on obstruction but also wouldn't charge him owing to Constitutional concerns.

Only somebody looking for your conclusion would reach it after reading that report.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Only somebody looking for your conclusion would reach it after reading that report. - #45 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 11:45 AM
Or someone who read the AG's letter to Congress stating specifically that. Here, let me quote it for you.


After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principals of Federal prosecution that guide are charging decisions. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offence. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President.
splinternews.com

Hell, I linked it for you last time we discussed this. You claimed you were going to dive into it, but never responded. Maybe you dove into something else instead.
Once again, you have taken every opportunity to keep yourself ignorant to the actual matter at hand. That letter was submitted months ago now. You've been railing against reality for months, you've been mistakenly calling other people wrong all because you couldn't be bothered to educate yourself on the subject that you are so passionate about.

#46 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-23 12:23 PM | Reply

LOL you're deferring to the hack Barr's conclusion instead of what the report actually says.

No wonder you've been stating the wrong conclusion for months.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 12:26 PM | Reply

are = our. Couldn't copy-paste from the image of the letter, so any spelling/grammatical errors are mine.

#48 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-23 12:34 PM | Reply

No wonder you've been stating the wrong conclusion for months.
#47 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 12:26 PM

I've been telling you the opinion of the man that Mueller works for. The man that Mueller presented his report on the evidence to. The man who was left the decision as to whether or not to press any further charges. The man imbued by Congress to make charging decisions in this matter. The man who has made his charging decision. Insufficient evidence.

Who's conclusions have you been talking about?

#49 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-23 12:37 PM | Reply

Who's conclusions have you been talking about?

#49 | Posted by Avigdore

The ones from the actual report, not from the political fixer.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 01:25 PM | Reply

The ones from the actual report, not from the political fixer.
#50 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 01:25 PM

The report doesn't have an opinion. It very clearly relays that. Instead it lists out any evidence that could be used to indicate that Trump did commit OoJ.
So, you're not giving the report's opinion. Who's opinion are you giving?

#51 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-23 01:42 PM | Reply

The report doesn't have an opinion. It very clearly relays that. Instead it lists out any evidence that could be used to indicate that Trump did commit OoJ.
So, you're not giving the report's opinion. Who's opinion are you giving?

#51 | Posted by Avigdore

It very clearly lays out why charges weren't filed but that the evidence was sufficient to absolutely rule out exoneration.

That's as clear a conclusion of guilty as we were going to get considering the report clearly states that even the accusation of criminal activity or sealed indictments to be unsealed after Trump leaves the WH raises Constitutional concerns.

You're presenting a cut and dried version of it that doesn't match the reality.

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 01:56 PM | Reply

It very clearly lays out why charges weren't filed but that the evidence was sufficient to absolutely rule out exoneration.
Correct. There is some evidence that he's committed a crime. There just is not sufficient evidence to prove that he's committed a crime. Which I started off by stating and you're still painting as wrong. Given that Mueller was unable to reach an opinion on OoJ, he merely reported on the evidence. The Dept of Justice didn't feel the need to abide by the same limitations that Mueller felt constrained by. That AG & AAG, after consulting with OLC and senior DOJ personnel, review of the reported upon evidence reached the only conclusion that matters in filing criminal charges in this case. That is the determination of insufficient evidence of OoJ.

I'm not sure who else's opinion you believe matters in this instance. From impeachment charges, zero evidence of OoJ would still be sufficient for the Dem's to file impeachment charges. Impeachment being a political, not legal, tool. (for those with too little reading comprehension abilities, I'm not claiming that there was zero evidence, only that zero was the threshold).

#53 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-23 02:18 PM | Reply

Given that Mueller was unable to reach an opinion on OoJ, he merely reported on the evidence.

Mueller explicitly states that he could only present evidence because even the accusation of criminal wrongdoing was an unconstitutional burden on the office of POTUS.

He ends the Vol II intro by stating, again explicitly with no room for interpretation, that if they could exonerate Trump they would have said so without hesitation but that they absolutely could not do so based on the evidence collected.

Why else do you think there was all sorts of analysis of the validity of Mueller's legal theories that he used in the report? Because if you undercut the theory you can claim his conclusions were invalid.

Before you ask, here.

www.google.com

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 02:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I'm not sure who else's opinion you believe matters in this instance. From impeachment charges, zero evidence of OoJ would still be sufficient for the Dem's to file impeachment charges. Impeachment being a political, not legal, tool.

I think Mueller's opinion is what matters most in the instance as he is the most familiar with the full expanse of evidence and the reasons behind holes in said evidence. He has the clearest picture of anybody.

As for impeachment, I'm well aware of everything you said. Believe it or not, I don't argue this because I'm a proponent of impeachment (on which I'm torn as to whether or not I support it) but because I want the actual truth to be at the root of all of this. There are bigger issues at stake than partisan point scoring.

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 02:28 PM | Reply

Maryland is one of the most corrupt Democrat states, trailing only NY and California in their grifting.

#56 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-23 02:33 PM | Reply

Mueller explicitly states that he could only present evidence because even the accusation of criminal wrongdoing was an unconstitutional burden on the office of POTUS. He ends the Vol II intro by stating, again explicitly with no room for interpretation, that if they could exonerate Trump they would have said so without hesitation but that they absolutely could not do so based on the evidence collected. - #54 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 02:24 PM
That he can't exhonorate Trump means that there was greater than zero evidence.
Are we in agreement on that?

Barr assumed Mueller's legal theories with regard to reviewing the evidence. He stated such in his news conference (don't have time to pull up the quote, but I'm 90%? sure...sorry). Even though he didn't agree with the constructs that Mueller chose to use, he still accepted them as good and valid when he reviewed the reported on evidence and reached the decision that he reached.

Mueller states that there is some level of evidence between zero and indictment.
Barr states that there is some level if evidence greater than zero and less than indictment.
The word to describe the level greater than zero and less than indictment : insufficient.

#57 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-23 02:34 PM | Reply

Evidently I had more time than I thought:

Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel's legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion

www.politico.com

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-23 02:37 PM | Reply

Mueller states that there is some level of evidence between zero and indictment.

You keep ignoring the fact that he didn't say anything about indictment. Do I have to repeat for the third time why?

It's almost as if you're ignoring inconvenient parts of Mueller's report to maintain your view...

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 02:44 PM | Reply

The subject gentlemen, is Rep Cummings pay to play corruption.

JPW. You're drink is ready at the bar.

#60 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-23 02:48 PM | Reply

Ok...
Try this instead if you're being pendatic:

Mueller states that there is some level of evidence greater than zero.

#61 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-23 02:48 PM | Reply

Also, for the record, if this were HRC, the same idiots claiming "minnow" would be claiming "blue whale".

#34 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

If this were HRC you wouldn't be screaming "blue whale", you'd be screaming, "Plankton, you misogynists!"

What's up with all of the nautical references anyway? Danforth must have re-read Dreams written by Bill Ayer...I mean...written by Barack Obama, for the umpteenth time.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-23 03:12 PM | Reply

"What's up with all of the nautical references anyway? Danforth must have..."

Read the thread, doofus. Danforth didn't start the theme.

"If this were HRC you wouldn't be screaming "blue whale", "

Yes I would. Just like I'd be screaming if she were self-dealing from a charity, money laundering for the Russians, or evading taxes to the tune of nine figures.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-23 03:18 PM | Reply

"If this were HRC you wouldn't be screaming "blue whale", "
----
Yes I would.

#63 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

ROC and I have both said that if the GOP controlled the House after the Mueller report we'd both say the GOP-lead House should commence impeachment hearings - a hypothetical situation that doesn't exist.

You've refused to accept our take on that and have been a pretty-------- about it.

So, please explain to me why I should accept your answer of a hypothetical situation that doesn't exist?

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-23 03:27 PM | Reply

Mueller states that there is some level of evidence greater than zero.

#61 | Posted by Avigdore

Taking Mueller's statements as a whole instead of piecing it out to disregard whatever necessary isn't being pedantic.

#65 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-23 03:50 PM | Reply

I am not expecting an answer for #64.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-23 04:16 PM | Reply

"ROC and I have both said that if the GOP controlled the House after the Mueller report we'd both say the GOP-lead House should commence impeachment hearings"

First, you're both lying.

Second, it's mighty convenient to make that claim now, but very hard to swallow, when you never exhorted the Rs to take any steps in the first two years.

Do you actually believe anyone with a room-temperature IQ or better believes you?

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-23 04:20 PM | Reply

#67 Try addressing #64, -------.

You won't because you can't.

So, why double down with your BS?

I can't disprove a hypothetical.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-23 04:29 PM | Reply

"You won't because you can't."

I won't because you already admitted not holding Republicans to the same standards you now want to hold Democrats.

Make that a GIANT glass of STFU.

"I can't disprove a hypothetical."

No one believes your lie, based on your prior behavior.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-23 04:33 PM | Reply

this is a cute exchange. Danforth is mad at Jeff because the GOP didn't try to run trump out of the WH immediately after winning election and Jeff didn't cry about it.

Jeff, I don't really know what's in your heart....and I hope you don't hate me for saying this......I don't care.

I don't really understand why anybody here would either.

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2019-05-23 04:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--I don't really understand why anybody here would either.

It's really hilarious how people treat this place like it's life or death. Like anyone should give a flying f--- what some anonymous, insignificant jackasses on a tiny blog think.

#71 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-23 04:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Lol.

#72 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-23 04:54 PM | Reply

First, you're both lying.

Your Gorilla Panic is showing yet again.

Do you actually believe anyone with a room-temperature IQ or better believes you?

Yes, since most people below that line think we are lying.

#73 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-23 04:56 PM | Reply

I don't know what's in Danforth's heart either....and that's okay. I'm certainly not going to chase him around here accusing him of positions he would take in hypotheticals.

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2019-05-23 04:57 PM | Reply

Each one was supposed to be the be-all-end-all. No fish yet. But a whopper of a fish story.

See you on the dock.

#39 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Except they weren't Supposed to End anything. Except whoever is breaking the law.

And Yes, we should End their careers. That is what investigations are for. Finding out who is breaking the Law and stop it.

Trump broke the law. And yes, we should end his career, too.

You would have done no less for Hillary. You would do no less for me.

I know Trumpy wouldn't.

#75 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-23 05:18 PM | Reply

- Trump broke the law.

Link?

You have a fish story. Now you need a fish. The expedition is on for the bloated white whale.

Lots of boats in the water. Lots of bait. Lots of wide nets.

No fish on the dock, mate. The forecast is for rough seas ahead. My advice?

Dramamine.

#76 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-24 12:09 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort