"...Lawyering, and everything, your honor."
What a transcript. I wish we had this show here. It looks great.

But don't ask him to prove it with, say, transcripts or IQ test results....just trust him.

Hmmmmm ... could Trump have leaked the phone transcripts creating a *fake news* story to catch the press in a *lie ? Wouldn't put it past him.

I copied this from a transcript from CSpan, and wrote a lead in that matches this headline.

I found it pretty damning, too.

(I stopped at the strong statement of "these were lies.")

What transcript of what conversation?! Trump claimed to have been tapped, based on a Fox report, based on an Alex Jones theory. No evidence, like a transcript of any conversations Trump has had, has ever been produced....none. I have o idea what you're talking about.
And Faux news itself had to do a special report clearly stating that they never received the tips Napolitano claimed they had received in his commentary implicating the British, and they have NO evidence he was ever under surveillance....full stop.
Napolitano's commentary was pure bullshit, and they've apparently (astonishingly) taken him off the air for spreading it.
"The Russians did it" is from the FBI....Comey's the name, inserting himself into politics is his game....but he's backed up by the heads of no less than 17 intelligence agencies on the Russian involvement claim.

Because I'm assuming that one of the parties to the conversation didn't just write a transcript of the conversation from memory and give it to someone else, to later be leaked.

I just happened to come across an interesting theory that is plausible(The Brits did it). From the Judge who has railed againt the unconstitutional NSA spying, so I don't think you can chalk this up to pure FOX news bullshit. In fact they took him off the air indefinitely for expressing his opinion. All of Comey's statements would still be truthful as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/16/andrew-napolitano-did-obama-spy-on-trump.html

Of course, just as I give little creedence to unsourced assertions that "The Russians did it" during the last administration, this will stay an interesting theory until the anonymous sources can deliver evidence.

Few have seen the transcripts, but those who have characterized his conversations as containing information the Russians could use to blackmail him with. To me, that sounds much worse than 'He mentioned sanctions, but only to say he won't discuss them.'

Trump had already publicly stated that he would remove any sanctions Obama implemented (which by itself is subversive), so for me to think his proxy said anything differently would require proof.

They have that proof, the full transcripts recorded by the intelligence community, and Trump could declassify it and show us today...but he hasn't and he won't because undoubtedly what was said on his behalf looks terrible at best, and more likely treasonously unAmerican.

Those transcripts are classified, so we'll have to wait for someone to hack his emails/the FBI and release them to WikiLeaks to read them, but the administration has admitted that they would show that he discussed their intention to eliminate the sanctions Obama had just implemented that day, even though he was a private citizen at the time and Trump was not yet president, contrary to what they've been selling us for the last month.
Subverting foreign affairs in collusion with a foreign nation's diplomats, that's called treason.
Allowing someone you KNOW subverted foreign affairs by colluding with a hostile foreign nation and it's diplomats and lied about it repeatedly both in public and privately to the administration to retain high security clearance for almost a month after the subversive crimes come to light...that's complete incompetence that rises to the level of impeachment, IMO. Far worse than what Nixon did.

Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

Reports are today that we've threatened military action with China over their sand islands (they replied "unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish. Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories, If Trump's diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash."), Iran, and ....wait for it....Mexico.
The AP reports to have read the transcript of a phone conversation between Presidents Nieto and Trump where Trump threatened "You've got a bunch of bad hombres down there. You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I might just send them down to take care of it."
So, in short order we're poised to start 3 new wars, one with a nuclear super power, one in the middle east, and one on our southern border.
And alienated Australia.

Seems like a lot more than pissing in the soup already, he's flavoring it with broken glass and jagged metal Krusty O's.

That's great stuff. I was thinking of doing some transcription/translation, but couldn't do the wordplay justice.

I think the presentation is universal enough that the intention comes across regardless of locality; unfortunately this is also true of the subject matter.

Looking around on Irish forums, I see a fair few accusations of click-bait, heavy handedness, and reliance on tropes. From what I can tell, though, the accusations are mostly from people far removed from the situation by class and gender, as so often happens, and is pretty much directly referenced in the poem.

Thank you Trump, for being such a thoroughly disgusting person that even Republicans can't support you anymore.
Thank you Trump, for being such a cry baby that you have begun attacking any Republican that doesn't support you to the end, actually telling your followers to not vote for them.
Thank you Trump, for likely handing the control of the government to the Democrats. Barring more unforeseen surprises, that is. It seems probable that Trump will end up being the most important Democrat in recent history, doing more for the Democratic party than any other 10 politicians combined.
It's gratifying to see that even zealous right wingers have a line they won't follow their leader past....I was honestly beginning to wonder. They had no problem at all with him repeatedly saying he wanted to screw his daughter, repeatedly failing in business, repeatedly not paying his bills, repeatedly being caught as an adulterer, repeatedly making blatant racist claims and plans, etc.... it seemed there was no line to cross for them.
I can only hope that the tapes of him repeatedly saying the "N word" among other unacceptable disgusting behavior from the unaired Apprentice tapes come out in the next weeks. I find it hilarious that there's actually a go fund me page trying to get $5 million to pay for the non disclosure penalty if someone leaks them. Anonymous, where are you? Go hack MGM and get those tapes to Assange.

Clinton....make an offer to release the transcripts of your speeches if Trump releases the Apprentice recordings....please OH please.

Dialogue taken from an actual court transcript.

I think it is stupid to whine about the email leaks "unfairly" damaging Hillary's campaign.

The DNC could have easily avoided the fallout / resignations / etc. by simply not doing shady, underhanded shit. When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don't bitch about who snitched on you -- a better response would be to learn that you can't get caught if you don't do anything wrong.


Sorta reminds me of earlier in the campaign when Hillary complained that it was unfair for people to want to see her transcripts of paid speeches given to Wall Street banks. She said that other candidates weren't expected to do that, so it was an unfair double standard. Bernie Sanders response was great -- he said he'd be 100% willing to hand over any of his transcripts, except for one minor problem: he never made any paid speeches to Wall Street banks.


With regards to Wikileaks, I have zero problems with how they handled things and don't care at all who their source was -- Russia, some other very biased source with a clear agenda to damage Hillary, whatever. The only thing that matters is, are the emails true / legit? I haven't heard anyone suggest that they aren't; just bitching about it being "unfair" that all the dirt is on Hillary and the DNC.

Wikileaks relies on sources. You know, leakers. I'm confident that if they had dirt on Trump or any other candidate, they'd put it out there. But Wikileaks can't make candidates or parties do questionable shit, and even when candidates or parties do do questionable shit, they still need someone to catch them and then leak the information to Wikileaks.

Sometimes, if they don't have any dirt on somebody, it might be because there isn't any dirt to be had... Just like Sanders' transcripts of Wall Street speeches.