WWTBAM Bored

Daniel Day Lewis 2007 wrote:One night I'm going to come to you inside of your house or wherever you’re sleeping and I’m going to cut your throat.

Christopher Walken 1993 wrote: I know you know where they are. So tell me before I do some damage you won't walk away from.

Republican Congressman Michael Gaetz 2019 wrote:Hey @MichaelCohen212 - Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot...

Guess which of these lines were in a movie and which one was in an actual Twitter post today?

Last time I checked, witness tampering was still a crime. And since this was a tweet, and not a statement from the floor of the House, I don't think he's protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

Daniel Day Lewis 2007 wrote:One night I'm going to come to you inside of your house or wherever you’re sleeping and I’m going to cut your throat.

Christopher Walken 1993 wrote: I know you know where they are. So tell me before I do some damage you won't walk away from.

Republican Congressman Michael Gaetz 2019 wrote:Hey @MichaelCohen212 - Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot...

Guess which of these lines were in a movie and which one was in an actual Twitter post today?

Which ones are violent?

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Daniel Day Lewis 2007 wrote:One night I'm going to come to you inside of your house or wherever you’re sleeping and I’m going to cut your throat.

Christopher Walken 1993 wrote: I know you know where they are. So tell me before I do some damage you won't walk away from.

Republican Congressman Michael Gaetz 2019 wrote:Hey @MichaelCohen212 - Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot...

Guess which of these lines were in a movie and which one was in an actual Twitter post today?

Which ones are violent?

Which one actually happened and which were in a movie?

You think "Testify the way I want you to or I'll cause you grief in your personal life" is legal? Is acceptable? There's a reason there are laws against witness tampering and those laws don't require the threat to be physical. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:




Guess which of these lines were in a movie and which one was in an actual Twitter post today?

Which ones are violent?

Which one actually happened and which were in a movie?

You think "Testify the way I want you to or I'll cause you grief in your personal life" is legal? Is acceptable? There's a reason there are laws against witness tampering and those laws don't require the threat to be physical. --Bob

But, who made a threat?

It's just advice for the man to consider. There is no "if you do this, I'll do that".

Bob78164 wrote: You think "Testify the way I want you to or I'll cause you grief in your personal life" is legal? Is acceptable? There's a reason there are laws against witness tampering and those laws don't require the threat to be physical. --Bob

Who said what you quoted? That is a threat, sure. But no one said that, or tweeted it.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: You think "Testify the way I want you to or I'll cause you grief in your personal life" is legal? Is acceptable? There's a reason there are laws against witness tampering and those laws don't require the threat to be physical. --Bob

Who said what you quoted? That is a threat, sure. But no one said that, or tweeted it.

Apparently a whole bunch of law professors think this constitutes witness tampering:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... sting.html

BackInTex wrote:It's just advice for the man to consider. There is no "if you do this, I'll do that".

I'm really worried about you, BiT. You're bending over so far backwards to defend Donny and his enablers that you can't help but pull a muscle. Please be careful. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: You think "Testify the way I want you to or I'll cause you grief in your personal life" is legal? Is acceptable? There's a reason there are laws against witness tampering and those laws don't require the threat to be physical. --Bob

Who said what you quoted? That is a threat, sure. But no one said that, or tweeted it.

Apparently a whole bunch of law professors think this constitutes witness tampering:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... sting.html

Dude. It's Slate. Please.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:It's just advice for the man to consider. There is no "if you do this, I'll do that".

I'm really worried about you, BiT. You're bending over so far backwards to defend Donny and his enablers that you can't help but pull a muscle. Please be careful. --Bob

I only need to be careful if I wear a red cap.

Beebs52 wrote:
Dude. It's Slate. Please.

Those law professors aren't on the Slate payroll.

Nancy Pelosi on Twitter:





Gaetz responds:

Speaker, I want to get the truth too. While it is important 2 create context around the testimony of liars like Michael Cohen, it was NOT my intent to threaten, as some believe I did. I’m deleting the tweet & I should have chosen words that better showed my intent. I’m sorry.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Dude. It's Slate. Please.

Those law professors aren't on the Slate payroll.

No they are not, but then Slate only provided responses from their selection of professors. I'm sure there are professors would provide dissenting opinions.

They don't care about the truth. What the heck did we spend two years and millions of dollars on the Mueller investigation for if they are not going to rely on it?

BackInTex wrote:They don't care about the truth. What the heck did we spend two years and millions of dollars on the Mueller investigation for if they are not going to rely on it?

Ask Roger Stone and Paul Manafort whether we're relying on the Mueller investigation.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:They don't care about the truth. What the heck did we spend two years and millions of dollars on the Mueller investigation for if they are not going to rely on it?

Ask Roger Stone and Paul Manafort whether we're relying on the Mueller investigation.

What do they have to do with Cohen and what they will be quizzing him about? You know, though you may not admit it, that Mueller's investigation was about Trump and so far after two exhaustive years there is nothing, yet today's proceedings are about Trump because the hired gun did not give the Dems the answer they wanted and there are two more years (really 6) to feet drag on actually doing their jobs.

BackInTex wrote:They don't care about the truth. What the heck did we spend two years and millions of dollars on the Mueller investigation for if they are not going to rely on it?

The Mueller investigation is limited in scope, and it's not clear that Donny's Justice Department will allow the public access to it. That's completely unacceptable.

And I don't remember you complaining that Congressional investigations of, among other things, Benghazi were duplicative of work that the Inspector General performed. Nor do I remember you taking the position that Congress should simply accept the FBI's findings that Secretary Clinton's handling of e-mails was not criminal conduct. --Bob

The Mueller investigation is limited in scope

Really? What scope is that? They seem to be investigating everything except anything that has to do with the dem party. And they've taken a damn long time with it.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:They don't care about the truth. What the heck did we spend two years and millions of dollars on the Mueller investigation for if they are not going to rely on it?

The Mueller investigation is limited in scope, and it's not clear that Donny's Justice Department will allow the public access to it. That's completely unacceptable.

And I don't remember you complaining that Congressional investigations of, among other things, Benghazi were duplicative of work that the Inspector General performed. Nor do I remember you taking the position that Congress should simply accept the FBI's findings that Secretary Clinton's handling of e-mails was not criminal conduct. --Bob

Did we have a special counsel investigation of two years for Clinton? Nope. We didn't even have an independent investigation. I'm not even sure we had an investigation given all the knowledge we have of the "investigators".

And actually, the FBI did find the handling of Clinton's email were criminal conduct, just not intentionally criminal (wink wink).

BackInTex wrote:You know, though you may not admit it, that Mueller's investigation was about Trump and so far after two exhaustive years there is nothing, yet today's proceedings are about Trump because the hired gun did not give the Dems the answer they wanted and there are two more years (really 6) to feet drag on actually doing their jobs.

Mueller was tasked to expose Russian election interference and conspiracy with the Trump campaign, and it’s already caught some big fish. Even if Trump and his family aren’t implicated, the investigation has been a success in my mind.

So far, Trump is accused of offenses like the ones that got Clinton impeached. While many Democrats, including some in Congress, hate Trump so much they’re longing for impeachment, the Democratic leaders realize the political risks, and will support impeachment only if there’s clear evidence of serious crimes as in Nixon’s case.

In the meantime, they’re not dragging their feet. They’ve been passing legislation, including bills (like the DHS compromise and gun background checks) that have bipartisan and public support.

So far, Trump is accused of offenses like the ones that got Clinton impeached.

So far, trump has been accused of everything, so that's not a reach. Where's the blue dress?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

So far, Trump is accused of offenses like the ones that got Clinton impeached.

So far, trump has been accused of everything, so that's not a reach. Where's the blue dress?

You mean eyewitness testimony and signed checks demonstrating criminal conduct? Aren't you watching Cohen's testimony? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: You mean eyewitness testimony and signed checks demonstrating criminal conduct? Aren't you watching Cohen's testimony? --Bob

Of course not. Flock's already been told what to think.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: You mean eyewitness testimony and signed checks demonstrating criminal conduct? Aren't you watching Cohen's testimony? --Bob

Of course not. Flock's already been told what to think.

Darn. Feb 2nd again. I got you babe...