Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

Serious question, does Mueller have private security guarding him 24/7? Does he have a food taster? What is the speculation on this?

I know he has balls of steel and probably sleeps with two pistols and one eye open...but shit...there’s a fuck ton of maniacs out there that could try some dumb shit to save dear leader. See Florida bomb man.

  • Replies 34.3k
  • Views 2.4m
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

  • Incredulity
    Incredulity

    liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

  • I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

 

Inadvertent inadvertent? Or purposefully inadvertent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is our concern dude. 

Someone tell me what this means.


Doesn’t mean shit till we get him on US soil.
2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Yep. Pardon Don Jr.  I fucking dare you.   That's political poison, and it's gonna be REAL hard for McConnell and the rest of the usual dipshits to defend it on my TV on Sunday morning.  And much, much harder on the campaign trail. 

They've shown no spine to date.  Can't fathom that changes for this reason.  It also won't change anyone's opinion because 'Merica.

1 minute ago, deech said:

They've shown no spine to date.  Can't fathom that changes for this reason.  It also won't change anyone's opinion because 'Merica.

It could very well result in fewer Americans identifying as Republicans. 


Inadvertent inadvertent? Or purposefully inadvertent?


It looks genuinely inadvertent. Particularly since they don’t have him custody yet.


It looks genuinely inadvertent. Particularly since they don’t have him custody yet.


I don’t know. Ecuador has been looking to boot him and it could be a tell to Trump/Stone that we have the evidence while he is filling out his take home exam.
53 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

 


I don’t know. Ecuador has been looking to boot him and it could be a tell to Trump/Stone that we have the evidence while he is filling out his take home exam.

 

First step he takes on American soil, Trump and McConnell will be there to greet him.  I'd probably throw Lindsey in that meeting as well.  They're going to need to coach his testimony to keep their stories straight--provided they haven't already been communicating.   

Edited by Mdhorn

4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

For McConnell and the rest of the dipshits, all you would get from a pardon of Junior would be furrowed brows and concern.

 

On the campaign trail, it would be celebrated.  

Furrowed brow?  Try righteous fury that the crazed Mueller would target Trump’s children with his witch hunt. It would be characterized as a despicable and desperate ploy to harm the President due to the investigation having turned up NO COLLUSION!

  • Author

It was clear in the last indictment of the Russians that WikiLeaks (Assange, Organization 1) was going to get rolled up in an indictment.

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It was clear in the last indictment of the Russians that WikiLeaks (Assange, Organization 1) was going to get rolled up in an indictment.

Image result for it is known meme

9 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:


Inadvertent inadvertent? Or purposefully inadvertent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm thinking it might have been on purpose.

Muller's team isn't leaking anything, and this may have a hidden in plain sight signal to just how deep they are going in without lube.

 

Yep, I do indeed.  
But, the public will see through the bullshit.  At least enough of them will to make a difference at the polls. 

At the polls?? Two years from now ? I want Don Jr to go to prison. If Mueller throws out some perjury charge without the context of the overall conspiracy, Trump will absolutely cry “witch hunt” and pardon him. And no one will be surprised in the least. There is a line when you get close enough to Donald’s inner circle where you can’t just can’t nibble anymore. Manafort was very close to that line. Jr is clearly inside of it. To charge Jr you have to show enough evidence that it’s not a witch hunt. Trump may pardon anyway, but there is a constitutional grey area around impeachment.
8 hours ago, shnsajax said:

 


Doesn’t mean shit till we get him on US soil.

 

According to Twitter, Russian tv says Assange is being extradited...

Mueller has to be the one working on his extradition.  Any other Gov employee who even suggests it is gonna get fired.

7 hours ago, shnsajax said:

 


I don’t know. Ecuador has been looking to boot him and it could be a tell to Trump/Stone that we have the evidence while he is filling out his take home exam.

 

This still baffles me as to why they don't just throw his ass out if they don't want him hanging around.

Ecuador is friendly with Russia.  It is a tricky situation for them because of that.

Edited by kevwun

1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This still baffles me as to why they don't just throw his ass out if they don't want him hanging around.

Bargaining chip of some kind for Ecuador is the only explanation I could ever come up with.  

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

this sounds familiar. hmmmm who else has published something that was not intended to be public without notice? anyone? i just cant place it....

I don't personally like Assange, but using the Espionage Act against him is a much greater threat to the freedom of the press than the silly Acosta bullshit.  Isn't it funny that there is no movement to repeal a law that is likely unconstitutional and is generally used against government whistleblowers?  Wonder why that is.

Edited by Fozzz

I don't personally like Assange, but using the Espionage Act against him is a much greater threat to the freedom of the press than the silly Acosta bullshit.  Isn't it funny that there is no movement to repeal a law that is likely unconstitutional and is generally used against government whistleblowers?  Wonder why that is.

Wut?
Just now, Bevo VIII said:


Wut?

Maybe this will help.

Quote

But prosecuting Assange and/or WikiLeaks for publishing classified documents would be in an entirely different universe of press freedom threats. Reporting on the secret acts of government officials or powerful financial actors – including by publishing documents taken without authorization – is at the core of investigative journalism. From the Pentagon Papers to the Panama Papers to the Snowden disclosures to publication of Trump’s tax returns to the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, some of the most important journalism over the last several decades has occurred because it is legal and constitutional to publish secret documents even if the sources of those documents obtained them through illicit or even illegal means.

The Obama DOJ – despite launching notoriously aggressive attacks on press freedoms – recognized this critical principle when it came to WikiLeaks. It spent years exploring whether it could criminally charge Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. It ultimately decided it would not do so, and could not do so, consistent with the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment. After all, the Obama DOJ concluded, such a prosecution would pose a severe threat to press freedom because there would be no way to prosecute Assange for publishing classified documents without also prosecuting the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and others for doing exactly the same thing.

As the Washington Post put it in 2013 when it explained the Obama DOJ’s decision not to prosecute Assange:

Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/

10 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I don't personally like Assange, but using the Espionage Act against him is a much greater threat to the freedom of the press than the silly Acosta bullshit.  Isn't it funny that there is no movement to repeal a law that is likely unconstitutional and is generally used against government whistleblowers?  Wonder why that is.

I know it's way oversimplifying, but one or more groups, potentially included state actors, attacked the computer systems of a candidate for one of our elections, and then Assange released the contents to influence our elections, down to releasing them at particular points of the election/campaign process.

If Assange was working for the KGB successor, you'd have no problem bringing him in. 

This wasn't him releasing everything at once and saying "SHE'S A BAD PERSON".  He had those emails released at specific times to damage/influence our election process.

 

Edited by atomheartbevo

We'll see what he's actually charged with, but irrespective of his motives for publishing those docs he shouldn't be criminally charged for simply publishing them.  Subjective motive of the publisher shouldn't matter.  What if someone published stolen docs with subjective bad faith motives (e.g., as a partisan effort to hurt the admin in power), but the stolen docs showed egregious and widespread illegal activity by the US government?  Should that person be thrown in the clink?  

We'll see what he's actually charged with, but irrespective of his motives for publishing those docs he shouldn't be criminally charged for simply publishing them.  Subjective motive of the publisher shouldn't matter.  What if someone published stolen docs with subjective bad faith motives (e.g., as a partisan effort to hurt the admin in power), but the stolen docs showed egregious and widespread illegal activity by the US government?  Should that person be thrown in the clink?  

They were stolen documents. I think his situation is completely different than whistle blowing.

What do you think whistleblowing is?  Do you think the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the press legally?  

He's also not a U.S. Citizen, so he's a hostile foreign actor who isn't entitled to all the same protections a citizen would be.  

31 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

this sounds familiar. hmmmm who else has published something that was not intended to be public without notice? anyone? i just cant place it....

That has to be one of the most ironic things ever written.

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

We'll see what he's actually charged with, but irrespective of his motives for publishing those docs he shouldn't be criminally charged for simply publishing them.  Subjective motive of the publisher shouldn't matter.  What if someone published stolen docs with subjective bad faith motives (e.g., as a partisan effort to hurt the admin in power), but the stolen docs showed egregious and widespread illegal activity by the US government?  Should that person be thrown in the clink?  

He's also a foreign national, that possibly was working in conjunction with other foreign states and US citizens.

Quite a bit different than the Pentagon Papers, a whistleblower, etc.

Just now, Chad Fuck said:

He's also not a U.S. Citizen, so he's a hostile foreign actor who isn't entitled to all the same protections a citizen would be.  

Where does the first amendment mention citizenship?  Constitutional protections are afforded to non-citizens.  

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Where does the first amendment mention citizenship?  Constitutional protections are afforded to non-citizens.  

Really?  That's the argument you're going with?  So does everyone in the world get all US Constitutional protection when they are not on US soil?

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Where does the first amendment mention citizenship?  Constitutional protections are afforded to non-citizens.  

I didn't say anything about the First Amendment.  Some Constitutional protections are afforded to non-citizens, like those in the 1st Amendment.  But some are not.  

We don't have all the information about what he's charged with.  So it's premature to ramp up a 1st Amendment argument, or any defensive argument, here.

I was just making note of the fact that the is not a U.S. Citizen, and therefore, is not accorded all the rights that we freely banter about here.  Mueller will be acutely aware of this and any restraints, or lack of restraints, it puts on him.

assange was some sort of hero to some but turns out he maybe was just a pawn in russian's game.  if true, fuck that asshat for helping get trump elected.

Just now, DixonHur said:

Really?  That's the argument you're going with?  So does everyone in the world get all US Constitutional protection when they are not on US soil?

In a way, yes. First, the Constitution created a government of limited or enumerated powers. Anything outside of those powers is something the government cannot do. And that limit would apply regardless of the status of any persons or entities affected by the exercise of government power. So, those sorts of constitutional limits protect everyone. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights turned the original framework on its head a bit by restricting existing power rather than granting power. As a result, the protections provided by the Bill of Rights do vary in their scope depending on the status of the person or entity affected. 

12 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Really?  That's the argument you're going with?  So does everyone in the world get all US Constitutional protection when they are not on US soil?

They are if they are going to be charged with crimes by the state.

 

26 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

We'll see what he's actually charged with, but irrespective of his motives for publishing those docs he shouldn't be criminally charged for simply publishing them.  Subjective motive of the publisher shouldn't matter.  What if someone published stolen docs with subjective bad faith motives (e.g., as a partisan effort to hurt the admin in power), but the stolen docs showed egregious and widespread illegal activity by the US government?  Should that person be thrown in the clink?  

mere publishing stolen papers isn't illegal.  like you said, SCOTUS said that with the pentagon papers.  but that is more of a prior restraint case then a 'this-is-never-illegal' case.

 

you stole our nuclear codes?  those are truthful.  so publish them.  and you will go to jail.

 

you stole classified information?  hop in line with reality winner.

 

Who knows what the extra stuff is there to make it illegal.  like you said, the charging document will let us know.  but if we just argue "is it/is it not illegal to publish something stolen" then we are only looking at 1% of the case (and a question that is easily answered).

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

Good luck, Milky.

2F6B67E200000578-0-image-a-19_1450260830

lunatic fringe finding it harder and harder to make a point.

 

18 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Really?  That's the argument you're going with?  So does everyone in the world get all US Constitutional protection when they are not on US soil?

So then then there was no constitutional violation in preventing non-US citizens from entering the country via Trump's Muslim ban?  These were noncitizens outside of the US (you aren't "in" the US until you pass through customs) complaining of first amendment violations.  I assume you supported Trump on that one.

👎 socratic method posts.  Should we list all the legally important differences between a guy from Iran not being able to visit the U.S. and Acosta asking questions at a presser?  

12 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

mere publishing stolen papers isn't illegal.  like you said, SCOTUS said that with the pentagon papers.  but that is more of a prior restraint case then a 'this-is-never-illegal' case.

 

you stole our nuclear codes?  those are truthful.  so publish them.  and you will go to jail.

 

you stole classified information?  hop in line with reality winner.

 

Who knows what the extra stuff is there to make it illegal.  like you said, the charging document will let us know.  but if we just argue "is it/is it not illegal to publish something stolen" then we are only looking at 1% of the case (and a question that is easily answered).

I think if Ellsberg had expected the Reality Winner treatment the Pentagon Papers likely would have never been leaked.  Speaking of Ellsberg, here are his thoughts on Assange:

Quote

“Julian is not a whistleblower per se, but a facilitator of whistleblowing,” Ellsberg said, “…the point being that as a journalist, he can not fairly be tried under the Espionage Act.”

As one who only received classified material and published it, “It is essential that Julian Assange not be indicted, be convicted, or be extradited to the United States,” Ellsberg said.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/daniel-ellsberg-julian-assange-journalist-cant-tried-espionage-act/248803/

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.