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

12 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Stone can't keep his mouth shut.  

 
Stone just likes living on the edge
 

 

Edited by retread

  • 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

He's trying to get pre trial detention so that he can claim it as an injustice and try and whip up a frenzy that he is being persecuted and mistreated. To try and show public sympathy and try to convince Trump there is cover a pardon.

2 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

He's trying to get pre trial detention

He's doing a damned fine job.

I really hope ABJ doesn't toss him in PMITA prison.  Stone's obviously trying to tee this up for a pardon from Trump before any evidence is ever entered into the public record.

Edited by Yuk

  • Author

Trump isn’t going to pardon any of the Mueller indictments because the moment he does he will get impeached for obstruction of justice. 

I know he wouldn’t get removed by the Senate because nothing matters but it will be an open and shut case for house democrats to impeach.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump isn’t going to pardon anyone of the Mueller indictments because the moment he does he will get impeached for obstruction of justice. 

I know he wouldn’t get removed by the Senate because nothing matters but it will be an open and shut case for house democrats to impeach.

Well let's just get it overwith then.

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump isn’t going to pardon any of the Mueller indictments because the moment he does he will get impeached for obstruction of justice. 

I would think by now you'd know better than to presume what Donald Trump might do in any given situation.  It's not like he listens to anyone, either.

  • Author
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I would think by now you'd know better than to presume what Donald Trump might do in any given situation.  It's not like he listens to anyone, either.

Oh I’m well aware I could be wrong but Trump is all about optics and a trial in the Senate after becoming the third president in US history to be impeached is something he does not want, even if he would ultimately prevail.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

You’ve been warned

6 minutes ago, Lurch said:

You’ve been warned
 

Though he foretold of a dismal future, even Orwell didn't imagine Diamond and Silk.

When are coordinated public calls to arms treated as fomenting insurrection?  I think we may find out.  

Edited by Degenerate Gardner

Manafort wants the Kilimnik info unsealed for the same reason.  He wants a pardon between Virginia sentencing and more meaty DC sentencing.  It was reported Trump offered pardons to both Cohen and Manafort.  I think he only offers pardons to those that can directly implicate him.  Stone would be another.  And big dick toilet salesman said he's seen "pardon documents" which I doubt related to Marcus Garvey. 

This is a very poorly worded statute:

Quote

18 U.S. Code § 2383.Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

And the counterargument is . . . the US Constitution impeachment clause.

On 3/3/2019 at 1:10 PM, suddenly shaggy said:

RIP, but it doesn't change what I said.

When did Rotunda change his mind? When did Jaworski? TwiceHorn didn't actually post any evidence for either claim. So far, we've seen evidence both Rotunda/Starr and Jaworski thought they had the authority to indict, but chose not to.  We have seen no evidence that Rotunda/Starr or Jaworski ever changed their mind.

 

I'm not sure, other than the quote above, what Jaworksi relied upon.  In 1973, probably exploring the issue more thoroughly, the Office of Legal Counsel rendered an opinion that "the  indictment  or criminal  prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch  to  perform  its  constitutionally  assigned  functions."  The 2000 OLC opinion builds on the 1973 opinion. 

Rotunda didn't change his mind, a key to his opinion was the existence of an Independent Counsel statute, and the fact that the 2000 OLC opinion binds Mueller, whose only authority comes from the DOJ.  https://verdict.justia.com/2017/08/14/indicting-president-president-clintons-justice-department-says-no 

 

  • Author
16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is a very poorly worded statute:

 

And the counterargument is . . . the US Constitution impeachment clause.

Another counter argument is the first amendment 

  • Author

Like those examples, and many others, the Hillary Clinton case was one where the public interest required that we speak. Angry voices in July 2016 said we should have said nothing. But we were ending a criminal investigation of a candidate for president, one overseen by Justice Department political appointees from the candidate’s political party. The decision to decline prosecution would have been far less credible without those details, causing lasting damage to the department’s reservoir of trust with the American people. Democrats were wrong about transparency then.

But Republicans are wrong now, when they claim Justice Department rules forbid transparency about the completed work of the special counsel. It is hard to imagine a case of greater public interest than one focused on the efforts of a foreign adversary to damage our democracy, and in which the president of the United States is a subject. I don’t know all the considerations that will go into deciding precisely what to say about the completion of the special counsel’s work and when to say it. It’s always important to consider guidelines and routines. But don’t listen to those who tell you transparency is impossible. Every American should want a Justice Department guided first and always by the public interest. Sometimes transparency is not a hard call.

If that ain't an implicit admission of guilt, I don't know what is.

(Caveat: That is if the tweet is true. I'd like to see an article with the necessary quotes.) 

1 hour ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Though he foretold of a dismal future, even Orwell didn't imagine Diamond and Silk.

 

The most accurate crystal ball gazers from our past appear to have been Matt Groening, Mike Judge, and the Dead Milkmen.

  • Author

If Instagraming your way into prison doesn’t get you into the posting hall of fame, I don’t know what does.

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If Instagraming your way into prison doesn’t get you into the posting hall of fame, I don’t know what does.

Reposting other people’s tweets 24/7?

13 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Reposting other people’s tweets 24/7?

Ain’t nobody got time to formulate their own original thought. 

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like those examples, and many others, the Hillary Clinton case was one where the public interest required that we speak. Angry voices in July 2016 said we should have said nothing. But we were ending a criminal investigation of a candidate for president, one overseen by Justice Department political appointees from the candidate’s political party. The decision to decline prosecution would have been far less credible without those details, causing lasting damage to the department’s reservoir of trust with the American people. Democrats were wrong about transparency then.

But Republicans are wrong now, when they claim Justice Department rules forbid transparency about the completed work of the special counsel. It is hard to imagine a case of greater public interest than one focused on the efforts of a foreign adversary to damage our democracy, and in which the president of the United States is a subject. I don’t know all the considerations that will go into deciding precisely what to say about the completion of the special counsel’s work and when to say it. It’s always important to consider guidelines and routines. But don’t listen to those who tell you transparency is impossible. Every American should want a Justice Department guided first and always by the public interest. Sometimes transparency is not a hard call.

Fuck you James Comey.  You ain't my homie!

30 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If Instagraming your way into prison doesn’t get you into the posting hall of fame, I don’t know what does.

carlos-mencia-16-1-691x448.jpg

We’re through the looking glass people. 

48 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If Instagraming your way into prison doesn’t get you into the posting hall of fame, I don’t know what does.

plagiarizing other people’s tweets?

  • Author

I read it and I couldn’t remember who tweeted it so I just paraphrased the joke without giving credit.  I should have known better. 

Hopefully you can find it in your heart to forgive me. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

You couldn’t remember who wrote something you read about an hour ago. You need to take a break and log off. Your pathology is showing. 

  • Author
4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You couldn’t remember who wrote something you read about an hour ago. You need to take a break and log off. Your pathology is showing. 

Lol okay tough guy.

Posting tweets is harmless. At worst it's mildly annoying.

Thinking you own the boards and control who posts here and everyone who disagrees with your Pizzagate conspiracy theory is worse than Hitler, well that's a uniquely touched individual.

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol okay tough guy.

There’s no tough man posturing there. Unless have a functional working memory is posturing. 

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lolz

Does this mean Hillary didn't shoot Seth? Maybe instead of the leaks, he was running away with Hillary's money earned from trafficking children and giving our uranium to the Russians. Or maybe Seth had the tape of Hillary ordering the terrorists to kill our people in Benghazi. 

She's the devil, ya know. We've been hearing that for decades now.

Anastasis and Euro are always so concerned about the important stuff.

1 hour ago, EuroHorn said:

Reposting other people’s tweets 24/7?

I, too, hate information. Let's go with the FOX model of 24/7 opining to the approving. 

 

14 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Anastasis and Euro are always so concerned about the important stuff.

Active measures!!!

5 hours ago, Yuk said:
I really hope ABJ doesn't toss him in PMITA prison.  Stone's obviously trying to tee this up for a pardon from Trump before any evidence is ever entered into the public record.

I don't know about the calculus of pardons, but this is a particularly sensitive situation for the judge to show any signs of inconsistency. 

After Stone got his ABJ grilling about it 'not being baseball and no third strikes' after his meme with her face next to crosshairs with accompanying text attacking her record, an imminent book publication with likely proscribed content was planned about which no mention was made to the Judge, followed in short order by the Who Framed Roger Stone internet bit over the weekend.  It was a double whammy fuck you to the judge.  He's ignoring the work of his own legal counsel by blatantly and aggressively calling her bluff.  I don't think she has much choice.  

These fucking guys and their honorifics. "Dr. Jerome Corsi." I wonder if he's friends with "Carter Page, Ph.D" or if he knew the late "Dr. Jerry Falwell."

New rule: if you propagate birther conspiracy theories, you don't get to be "doctor" anything. 

 

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

They scared.

The heat just rise ? why now ?

A Maxine tango with Deutsche Bank around Trump financing would make some mobsters want to sit down.

 

Spoiler

Dieter-from-Sprockets.jpg

 

Edited by triplehorn

47 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

New rule: if you propagate birther conspiracy theories, you don't get to be "doctor" anything. 

Dr. Doom.

17 hours ago, Lurch said:

You’ve been warned
 

Whose payroll are they on, and who decides about making these tweets?

Whose payroll are they on, and who decides about making these tweets?


I’m fairly certain they’re just dependent on the rubes, and business is good. They get an A+ for marketing.
3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

He's been saying this for a while now.  It's not really new.

Roger Stone avoids jail for at least a week, but his book is a problem 

 

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.