MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2024
Fox's Joe Concha proves it: In this morning's report, we asked you the following question:
Is RICO a crime?
As we noted, this latest tribal semantic dispute arose last Wednesday, during the latest, and possibly the last, impeachment inquiry concerning President Biden.
It arose in connection with a question posed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). As you may know, red tribe pundits love to please tribal viewers by claiming that she isn't especially bright.
Spoiler alert! In this case of this silly dispute, we'd have to rule that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez plainly did have it right! Reporting for The Hill, Rebecca Beitsch gave a good account of the way the dispute arose.
Below, you see the heart of Beitsch's report. We include The Hill's highly cogent headline:
Ocasio-Cortez demands GOP specify actual crimes in Biden impeachment inquiry
[...]
[Tony] Bobulinski, in a heated exchange with Ocasio-Cortez, said he personally witnessed President Biden committing crimes, listing “corruption statues, RICO, and conspiracy, FARA” in referencing racketeering laws and those that govern registering as a foreign agent.
It’s not clear what activity Bobulinski would have witnessed that would qualify as a crime, and he has previously testified he had limited interactions with President Biden shortly after he left office.
He then added that the lawmaker was “obviously not familiar with” RICO.
“RICO is not a crime; it is a category. What is the crime?” Ocasio-Cortez retorted.
Bobulinski grumbled about having to cite an exact statute and noted there are numerous lawyers on the committee.
"RICO isn't a crime," AOC said. At that point, she asked Bobulinski to name the specific crime or crimes he had seen Joe Biden commit.
Bobulinski wasn't able to do that—and in the wake of that exchange, a set of bungled semantic claims broke out on the red tribe right.
Human cogitation, alas! We humans simply weren't designed to handle such delicate tasks.
When it comes to basic skills of cognition, we humans are a puzzling mix. Our substantial engineering skills have allowed us to send people to the moon, even to design electric vehicles. But, as a general matter, our skills don't equip us to handle relatively simply analytical questions of this particular type.
Let us say, before we proceed, that we agree with the statement for which AOC was later ridiculed. We agree with her when she says that RICO isn't a crime.
If RICO isn't a crime, then what the Henry Hill is it? At this point, we're going to let the leading authority explain:
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
RICO was enacted by Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and is codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968.
Since 1972, 33 U.S. states and territories have adopted state RICO laws, which, although similar, cover additional state crimes and may differ from the federal law and each other in several respects.
[...]
Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes (27 federal crimes and eight state crimes) within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise."
Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.
Briefly, let's try to get clear:
As you can see, RICO actually isn't a crime. In reality, RICO—The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act—is "a United States federal law."
RICO isn't a crime; it's a federal law! A person can violate this particular law by committing at least two acts drawn from a long list of specific federal crimes. But that doesn't mean that the law itself is somehow a federal crime!
During her exchange with Bobulinksi, Ocasio-Cortez was asking him to name the specific acts by President Biden which would qualify as such crimes. Bobulinksi wasn't able to do it—and that's when the clowning began.
Making a bad situation that much dumber, red tribe pundits began to pretend that Ocasio-Cortez had produced the world's dumbest remark. Last Saturday night, Fox New pundit Jon Concha assigned himself that task.
Concha was serving as a panelist on the Fox News Channel program, The Big Weekend Show. As you can see by clicking here, the other panelists enjoyed a good laugh as Concha ridiculed Ocasio-Cortez for having produced "the biggest fail of the week."
After playing videotape from the hearing, Concha launched the ridicule. The foolishness ended like this:
CONCHA (3/23/24): I think AOC thinks "Rico" is the guy who drives her to the restaurant, or drives her to the airport. Because clearly, RICO is a crime! Jason.
FORMER REP. JASON CHAFFETZ: Yikes!
Except, of course, it isn't a crime; it's a federal law. Ocasio-Cortez was asking Bobulinski to name the specific crimes he says he saw Joe Biden commit under terms of that law.
None of this clowning will actually matter in the longer run. It does help us see an important point:
We humans just aren't especially sharp when it comes to matters like this. The later Wittgenstein was all about the kinds of failings involved in such confusions of language—human failings which he observed being committed from the top of the pile on down.
Don't get us wrong! We wouldn't necessarily fully endorse the way Ocasio-Cortez used her measly five minutes at the hearing in question. (To watch the full five minutes, click here.)
She wanted to ask Bobulinski if he could name a specific crime he'd ever seen Joe Biden commit. She also wanted to deliver a speech about the way the GOP-led committee had once again failed to state a basis for impeaching President Biden.
She may have tried to cram too much into her measly five minutes. Beyond that, we don't know what she meant when she said that RICO "is a category."
That said, on the one key point which later arose, she was plainly right. We're sorry, but RICO isn't a crime. It's a (highly complex) federal law.
Our brains aren't built for tasks of this type. We fail such tasks with great frequency, all the way down the line.
That's especially true when we're working in carefully selected partisan groups on "cable news" programs—on programs designed to entertain tribal viewers as they get propagandized, and also dumbed down, within an inch of their lives.
Red tribe programs are built that way. Blue tribe programs too.
Did AOC make a category error?
ReplyDeletelol
DeleteJust to be clear, Bob has been warning that the legal avenue of holding Trump accountable will never work, and now it's working too well.
ReplyDeleteThis is just repetition of the original argument zushed up with a bit more derision.
ReplyDeleteRICO is an acronym of the crime of organized racketeering.
It’s clear that AOC wanted Bobulinski to name a specific crime of racketeering and that he would not do it, sarcastically referring to all the lawyers in room. Bobulinski had already testified as to his dealings and knowledge of Hunter and Joe.
It’s interesting that Rep Stefanik was considered to be a demagogue for riding herd over the college presidents, but AOC shouting and lecturing that RICO is not crime (racketeering is most surely is a crime) and loudly demanding that Bobulinski give specific details as to what he thinks constitutes a racketeering charge isn't laughable, absurd, and the usual theater.
A good time was had by all.
AOC was right. To impeach Biden, we have to show what he did, which deed of his violated which law.
DeleteYou can't "violate" RICO. There is no "crime" of racketeering. A defendant can be "charged" with racketeering, meaning (among other things) that under particular circumstances, such as the commission of multiple felonies in concert with others, the defendant may be exposed to enhanced penalties for committing those other crimes.
DeleteAnd what AOC was asking (duh) is: What are those other crimes? And Bobulinski answering "RICO!" is just his obvious - obvious! - dodge.
DeleteBobulinski is accusing the President of something. If Congress holds a hearing to find out what he has to say, then it seems to me that he should tell us what crime, exactly, he is accusing the President of committing.
DeleteFor me, when he dodges by saying "RICO!", he loses a lot of credibility.
Once again proving that non attorneys should not be allowed to post on legal issues.
DeleteCecelia is disagreeing with Somerby. Let everyone take note.
DeleteOn the day of his son's baptism, Michael Corleone ordered the murders of the heads of the Five Families, Moe Greene, Tessio, and Carlo. If Bobulinski said he'd been there, and the police asked him what crime had Michael committed, and Bobulinski answered "RICO!", I'd wonder why he didn't say, "Murder!"
DeleteAnonymouse 4:21pm, I disagree with Bob liberal ideology. I agree with him as to his take on the culture and I like the guy. Imagine that!
DeleteDon't you mean Conspiracy to commit Murder?
DeleteCC - 4:21 thinks Somerby is a closet conservative and lies about it to con credulous liberals. Moreover, he thinks this fantasy is so obvious that everybody else who is rational believes it.
DeleteIt was Michael’s nephew’s baptism. The father was Carlo Rizzi, who was among those killed that day.
Delete5:29 - You're right. An important detail in the film, and I got it wrong.
DeleteConnie accuses Michael of killing Carlo, and Kay asks him if it is true. We all know how Michael responds. Then the door is closed.
DeleteI'm getting chills thinking about it.
Not sure where you get all that detail about @4:21's opinions from a one-liner. There are peope here who think that stuff but where does @4:21 say he is among them?
Delete4:21 thinks CC, who is conservative, always agrees with Somerby, implying that Somerby is a conservative - despite Somerby's frequent declarations that he is a liberal.
DeleteDeclarations don't make statements true. Somerby called Biden a terrible candidate again. Liberals might think that by they don't work against Biden's campaign by saying such things out loud. It is counterproductive.
DeleteLiberals can't say what they think? You do realize we live in America, right?
DeleteThat seems to summarize the criticism of Somerby. He can't be a liberal because he's not a propagandist for Biden.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:16pm, anonymices bemoan the fact that there are people here who appreciate Bob. They call us trolls and say that we impede informative discussion. Then they spend the entire day insulting Bob and telling him that he should not be discussing what he’s discussing.
DeleteBobulinski is accusing Biden of participating in a foreign influence‑peddling operation, from China and elsewhere, that sold out to foreign actors who were seeking to gain influence and access to Biden and the United States Government.
DeleteBecause there is no dispute that the President lied about it a number of times and there is no dispute his son and his brother did receive tens of millions of dollars from communist China and elsewhere and then split the money up with other family members, Democrats are correctly moving the story to "where's the crime?" Notice AOC and the idiotic blogs you read don't dispute that the money did change hands. That's because we have the bank records. It's indisputable.
So they move the story to "where's the crime?". And they are right. What is the crime of taking those millions from communist China and elsewhere for doing nothing? I don't think there's a law against it.
But next time you want to accuse the Trump family of being sleazy and unethical, remember these indisputable facts about the Biden family's sleaziness, greed and lack of ethics, will you?
🤘💩👯
"Because there is no dispute that the President lied about it a number of times"
DeleteNo dispute? Really?
Pied piper, your instincts haven’t served you well. I am 4:21, and did not claim that Somerby is a conservative. And I never have. My purpose with my comment was to show how Cecelia disagrees with Somerby and doesn’t get attacked or told to leave.
Delete10:42 - I apologize.
DeleteAnd I mean it.
DeleteThere's no dispute Biden lied about it over and over:
Deletehttps://oversight.house.gov/blog/joe-biden-lied-at-least-15-times-about-his-familys-business-schemes/
If the roles were reversed exactly and it was Trump who had lied about his family receiving millions of dollars from communist China and elsewhere in exchange for doing nothing, all of the idiotic DNC propaganda blogs would be going absolutely apeshit with their trademark righteous indignation and faux outrage. They operate under the insane assumption that the Bidens and other powerful Dems are not sleazy and unethical swamp players.
DeleteJust saying "Biden's son made money in international business" and isn't how I would write an anti-corruption story.
DeleteIt should contain three main components:
A. Political interest lobby advocates for policy
B. Politician or their family receives donation, contract or favor
C. Politician enacts policy that favors the group
Otherwise the story is basically "Biden has a rowdy son."
In theory of course but in reality the mechanisms of influence extend beyond direct transactions into a spectrum of more nuanced interactions. These include networking, privileged access to information and strategic non-financial support, all of which may not directly suggest the corruption of your simplified example. Benefits reaped from political corruption are not always direct or immediate. They can be indirect and deferred, benefiting not just the politician but also associates, with the expectation of future compensation, complicating the traceability of corruption.
DeleteBut your point is correct. Just saying "Biden's son and brother received tens of millions of dollars in lump payments from Chinese and Ukrainian oligarchs in exchange for doing nothing" does not mean that it was illegal.
@5:50 AM
DeleteHow about this:
A. a foreign company pays the politician (via his relative) $10 mil
B. the politician blackmails that foreign country's president to drop the investigation of that company.
Does this work for you? It doesn't have to be a whole 'policy', you know. There are many ways to exert influence. Check out the ongoing Bob Menendez saga.
6:08 Hunter only got one mil for the no-show job from Burisma.
DeletePlus what Burisma paid to one or another of dozens Rosemont Senecas.
DeleteI disagree with Bob's conservative ideology, but I agree with him that the media isn't at all liberal, and that it's a problem for liberals who want to win elections.
Delete6:32 I see. Makes sense.
DeleteNot showing outrage for the indisputable lies of President Biden and indisputable sleaze and grift of the Biden family does show the hypocrisy of liberal partisans. But we all knew about that already. It's natural. It's their religion.
DeleteI am disputing it, magat-trump-humper.
DeleteI know, but you've shown over and over again that you're an idiot zealot who made a political party your religion.. So it doesn't matter what you dispute.
DeleteEvery right wing accusation is a confession. Orange Jesus needs your money.
DeleteI totally dispute Our President either lied or did anything wrong in rewords to China. In addition the Right Wingers making these claims. And MAGA scum who repeat them here, are creeps who hate our Country.
DeleteHow can anyone call the conspiracy theories about the Biden's "indisputable" when there is no evidenc supporting them? There is nothing to dispute except a string of accusations. We all dispute those. Even the Congress has been disputing them. Johnson cannot bring an impeachment against Biden because the hearings produced no support for the claims against Biden.
Delete@6:08 That theory has been debunked a long time ago.
Delete@9:50 AM
DeleteIf an anon in Bob's blog comments says so, then it must be true.
Note that Bob does get to mentioning the somewhat mysterious Bobulinski here. The Republicans other witness against the Bidens that day was a career criminal who testified from jail.
ReplyDeleteCareer criminals never give anyone salient information.
DeleteA criminal might give salient information, might not. Each case has to be examined.
DeleteIndeed.
DeleteNote that now Cecelia is contradicting herself.
DeleteShe's woman enough to change her mind.Again, I like and respect her, even if I often disagree with her.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:49pm, I made no contradiction. You’re tone deaf and dense
DeleteCecelia, your propensity to insult those who disagree is not why I love and respect you.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:23pm, stay here long enough, you’ll come to appreciate it.
DeleteNo. You can do better.
DeletePoor, sweet, naive 11:49.
DeleteI still believe in my friend Cecelia.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:49pm, I already do better with anonymices.
DeleteI am far less caustic with them than they are to Bob and to David.
Move on, bro.
Cecelia doesn't deserve the shit Bob and David richly do.
Delete
ReplyDeleteYes, Bob. It all depends of what the meaning of "is" is.
And on the existence of "controlling legal authority".
DeleteI am repeating my comment, because it belongs on this thread:
ReplyDeleteI can't believe anyone would quibble over whether RICO is a crime or a law defining a number of crime. People are going to ridiculous lengths to defend AOC.
David, she is making the non-trivial point that, if you’re going to accuse the president of wrongdoing in order to impeach him, you need to specify the freaking thing he did wrong. It’s not just semantics.
Delete"she is making the non-trivial point that, if you’re going to accuse the president of wrongdoing in order to impeach him, you need to specify the freaking thing he did wrong"
DeleteShe's dumb as a rock, then. You don't demand that from witnesses.
But of course she is not dumb, she's just trying to score some points, using demagoguery.
I see. And what exactly was the purpose of bobulinski’s testimony? Did he describe anything nefarious and shady, to use non-legal terms? “Rico”
DeleteAccording to CNN:
Delete" “Joe Biden was more than a participant in and beneficiary of his family’s business; he was an enabler, despite being buffered by a complex scheme to maintain plausible deniability,” Bobulinski told House Oversight Committee investigators on Tuesday, according to a copy of his opening statement provided to CNN.
He further said he believed the multi-million-dollar business deals secured by Joe Biden’s son and brother only materialized “because Joe Biden was in high office.” He said, “the Biden family business was Joe Biden, period,” and specifically mentioned Joe Biden’s alleged role in a lucrative proposed deal with a Chinese energy conglomerate. "
What laws are broken, if any, is not his area of expertise. That's for lawyers to figure out. That's obvious to everyone, including AOC, I'm sure. Unless she is completely dumb.
You don't demand that from witnesses.
DeleteShe wasn't demanding anything from Bobo. She asked first specifically if he was accusing the president of having committed a crime. And he answered yes, he was indeed. The next natural question was to ask him to identify what crime, and that's when the blubbering fool started stuttering about RICO. AOC didn't invite the asshole, why don't you ask the monkeys on the other side of the aisle why they invited him, shit-for-brains.
Yes, this is not a trial. These are people testifying before Congress about their knowledge of things the President supposedly did that would deserve impeachment. A vague reference to RICO is insufficient without naming the crimes that criminal organization supposedly committed.
Delete"She wasn't demanding anything from Bobo. She asked first specifically if he was accusing the president of having committed a crime."
DeleteYes, doublethink is a perfectly normal M.O. for you idiot-moonbats, I know that. She wasn't demanding and she did demand, at the same time.
Anything else you've got to brain-fart, idiot-moonbat?
The witness described the current conspiracy theories against Biden but he didn't supply any evidence to support them, just as the other witnesses have had no evidence to support their smears.
DeleteThey may have proved that the Bidens are an organization, to the extent that all families are, but they haven't substantiated any crimes. You need that to apply RICO because the organization in question needs to be a criminal organization. It is not now and never has been a crime to be Joe Biden's son or Hunter Biden's family.
RICO by analogy with the law regarding hate crimes is a law that is applicable to a crime and how it is tried and punished. If you say that the law regarding hate crimes was applied to someone, the next question is what crime did he commit. AOC is entirely correct. DIC is the opposite.
DeleteCongress members can ask anything they want of witnesses, even irrelevant things. Witnesses typically have an attorney who may object to the questioning. But AOC's question seems pertinent to me.
Delete@5:56 PM
Delete"The witness described the current conspiracy theories against Biden but he didn't supply any evidence to support them"
A random guy at the pub describes conspiracy theories. Biden's Family business associate testifies, and his testimony is evidence.
What did Lev Parnas describe, shit for brains? I wonder why nobody is talking about his testimony.
Delete"But AOC's question seems pertinent to me."
DeleteA pertinent question would be, for example: "But why do you think that "the Biden family business was Joe Biden, period"?"
And then, assuming she sees herself as Mr. Biden's defender, she could try to find and point out to inconsistencies in the answer.
The fact that she felt compelled to spend her time on bullshit and demagoguery instead, indicates to me that she, in fact, believes that the witness is telling the truth.
It's too bad you weren't there to advise Gym Jordan what questions to ask, magat.
DeleteAnswering "Rico" is still better than him saying he doesn't understand it, but QAnon knows. Which is what I believe he meant.
Delete@6:23 It was evidence of his opinions but not of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. He needed some facts for that.
Delete@9:39 AM
DeleteIf you witnessed a murder and gave your testimony about what you saw, that's evidence. It's not evidence of your opinion of what you witnessed.
"People are going to ridiculous lengths to defend AOC."
ReplyDeleteIn response to people going to ridiculous lengths to attack AOC.
"We humans just aren't especially sharp when it comes to matters like this."
ReplyDeleteI'm puzzled who Our Host is talking about here. It can't be Concha and Chaffetz. I'd be surprised if they don't know they're clowning here. It's not AOC. Our Host agrees with what she said in the hearing room.
I suppose he could be talking about Fox's loyal audience. They keep watching even when they're being misled like this--but that doesn't mean they don't know better.
AOC is actually stepping up to get at the truth here. What's "not especially sharp" about that?
I hate it when Somerby generalizes his own mental deficiencies to the entire human race. He apparently has not heard of the bell curve, which exists for sharpness, as it does for most human characteristics.
DeleteSome sharp humans even believe that you don't convince anyone of anything by calling them stupid, as Somerby does here. Somerby must know that, so that's why I think his purpose here is something else.
And then he claims that cable news people are less sharp than people in general. I doubt that, but Somerby seems to enjoy saying it, over and over and over again.
There is no one number that can capture intelligence. You can find studies showing fasting improves brain function, anger sharpens or blunts certain kinds, that nutrition improves it, that empathy intelligence starts to fade off at those making 100,000 a year or more, that increasing nerve growth factor at sleep increases intelligence. Hormonal changes from life experience all change various perception and skill levels.
DeleteWhat an IQ test measures is a snapshot of one person's intelligence at a part of their life that is dependent on a wide variety of factors, habits, resources, lifestyles, and not just the person themself and their given lot in life.
As it turns out, a fanny worm was ejected.
Delete@8:40 --- The point is that whatever the effects of other factors, sharpness occurs on a bell curve, because most human characteristics do. That is the nature of human variability. If you are claiming that all of the other listed factors influence variability, that may be correct, but the fact remains that these extraneous factors affect different people differently, so people are not all alike in their sharpness.
DeleteAre the sharpest people sharper than Somerby gives them credit for being? Should we all be judged by our least sharp members? Are journalists in particular required to have the same knowledge of the law as an attorney does? Does that mean they must know all fields to that sharpness? Is that even possible?
Somerby once tried to enter the field of journalism drawing upon his knowledge of school testing procedures. It didn't work, so clearly there are skills that sharp journalists have that Somerby lacked.
Okay, here is the definition of RICO:
ReplyDelete"The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization." [Wikipedia]
Here is a partial description of Trump's criminal organization. There are many more co-conspirators who have not been tried for their crimes yet:
https://digbysblog.net/2024/03/23/the-best-thing-you-will-read-today/
About Paul Manafort, who was convicted, went to jail, then was pardoned and is now rejoining Trump's campaign. Here is what he did.
And then there is this from Rachel Maddow:
https://digbysblog.net/2024/03/22/viral-excellence/
This is partly why the Trump organization is a criminal organization, whereas Biden's administration is not.
DeleteA big question hanging over the presidential election is Biden’s strength among African American and Hispanic voters.
DeleteClaims by the Republicans are not actually "questions" but disinformation.
DeleteDoes Elon Musk have "limited skills"? Compared to an average non-technical human, his skills are unlimited. Compared to the top minds in various fields, Musk is a joke with a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteSomerby thinks that because he couldn't read and understand Einstein's book for dummies, Einstein must have limited skills. It never occurs to him that perhaps Somerby has a learning disability of some kind. At some point, he probably discovered that his middle school math students were sharper than him, so he left the field and took up standup comedy. The right place for a Joker.
Are you okay?
DeleteSomerby routinely denigrates the entire human race, but you ask if I'm OK?
DeleteThe average person cannot define FICO must less RICO, but why should they be able to? This is esoteric knowledge, not needed to live happy, fulfilled lives, working in most fields. Tomorrow, Somerby will say the journalists should be explaining RICO to the masses. Today, he cannot be bothered to do so himself.
ReplyDelete"We the humans have limited skills!" Is there some non-human that has better semantic skills?
ReplyDeleteUmmm I thought I saw Bubolinski try repeatedly answer and cut off each time for AOC
ReplyDelete"I saw him do a RICO and a conspiracy!"
DeleteI’m sure just one more witness, one more hearing will be the thing that finally proves Biden corruption. Six years, and just ONE MORE DAY is all it will take. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
ReplyDeleteLord the gop are such fools.
Similar to adherence to claims that Trump was involved in Russian collusion. What a witch hunt that was as well.
DeleteGet back to me when orange chickenshit testifies under oath to the Mueller investigation.
DeleteWhy? What would that do?
Delete6:23,
DeletePutin's Kompromat over him.
Don't worry, orange chickenshit would never do that, too much of a fucking treasonous coward liar.
DeleteThe idea that it would take some foreign power to get Republican voters amped-up to vote for a bigot, like Trump, is almost too stupid to contemplate.
DeleteOccam's razor is a far better explanation for why people who only care about bigotry and white supremacy get amped-up about casting a vote for Trump.
Nobody claimed that Putin and his goons were working to amp up Republican degenerates like DiC. Yes, of course, his bigotry and fascist leanings turn them on. DiC would crawl over hot coals to give the treasonous bastard his vote.
DeleteNo, the object was to suppress the democratic vote, get just enough morons to either stay home or waste their vote on useful tools like Jill Stein.
Wait, what would the orange chickenshit testifying under oath to the Mueller investigation do to prove claims that he was involved in Russian collusion? Be specific. Because it doesn't make sense that his testifying under oath would change Mueller's conclusion he could not establish "members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
DeleteSee, that's the problem with your claim, magat-trump-humper. orange chickenshit obstructed the investigation, tampered with witnesses, corruptly dangled pardons, AND REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS UNDER OATH, and then he brought in the cover-up specialist, Billy Barr, to bury the whole fucking thing. So you look really fucking stupid claiming it was a witch hunt. LOL
DeleteTherefore orange chickenshit DID conspire with the Russian government in its election interference activities?
DeleteThe absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
Stupid magat-trump-humper tries to put words in my mouth. Why doesn't stupid magat-trump-humper understand what I wrote instead of trying to paraphrase and put words in my mouth?
Delete*****
Ro Khanna: Did Bill Barr know that you were involved in getting this dirt?
Parnas: Absolutely. Bill, Bill Barr was informed of our investigation from the day he took office.
Khanna: Did you ever have a conversation with Bill Barr being lenient towards Dmitry, in Bill Barr’s role as Attorney General?
Parnas: I personally did not but I was witness to Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova, having a conversation with Bill Barr about Dmitry Firtash.
Khanna: What did they say to Bill Barr?
Parnas: Basically, they were telling him that the charges were false, and that he needs to drop the charges and, basically, end the case.
Khanna: And why did they tell him to drop the charges on this Russian [sic] oligarch?
Parnas: Because Dmitry Firtash was going to help us getting dirt on the Bidens, or whatever else the Trump campaign needed.
Khanna: So my understanding is you have the Trump campaign telling you to talk to a Russian [sic] oligarch to get dirt, on the President of the United States for political reasons, and then someone from the Trump campaign is talking to the Attorney General to drop the charges because this foreign national is helping get dirt on a political candidate?
Parnas: Absolutely.
“ None of this clowning will actually matter in the longer run.”
ReplyDeleteWhy does Somerby say this? It’s purpose is to damage AOC, just as the purpose of the “hearings” is to damage Biden. Just as the purpose of the Benghazi hearings was to damage Hillary Clinton. Therefore, it’s inappropriate to call it “clowning” and incorrect to say it won’t matter.
Hi Marrie Allen i have good questen,
ReplyDeleteFor the moneypay1 can i make it good monies with naj-02 system? Also may be it help with schwantz grow. I have small schwantz.
Lisa Lane has died.
ReplyDelete