Fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee is anticipated to be one of the most fiery exchanges between a witness and Congress in American history. But the reality of hours of grinding testimony and arcane parliamentary procedure has a way of making the best fireworks a little damp.
James Comey: Fantasy vs. Reality
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
68 Comments. Leave new
Why bother listening, Ted ? Everybody «knows» that those dastardly Russians – and Satan personified, Mr Putin – did it and even if they missed a particular opportunity and didn’t do it, they could have done it, so who needs evidence ? Fortunately there are forces for good in this world, like the US Congress and the FBI and the NSA, etc, etc, ad nauseam (not to mention the corporate media), who struggle against evil. No doubt there is laid up for them a crown of righteousness, which is the very least they deserve…
Henri
Ted has to listen so that we don’t have to.
Thank You, Ted.
I expect this televised, much hyped extravaganza to be little more than a reprise of the Seinfeld, ” a show about nothing”; a refutation of
“[A] tale
“Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing,”
to use the words of Shakespeare.
«[A] refutation», Glenn ? I’d have thought rather a confirmation of the analysis presented by the good poet….
Henri
@mhenriday June 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM
I assume your response to mine on June 8, 2017 at 9:32 AM maintains the sarcastic tone of your original post where “a crown of righteousness” is to be awarded to the aforementioned idiots who generated the fact free, but politically useful tale.
The pummeling of Trump by deep state and political actors may bring victory to the Democratic Party oligarchy, but an empty Pyrrhic victory for the plebeians who cheer their Democratic Party idols on.
The Democrat Party does not need to do anything for the people to win election but say how bad Trump is and how much lesser an evil they are, and so they will do nothing for them.
«I assume your response to mine on June 8, 2017 at 9:32 AM maintains the sarcastic tone of your original post where “a crown of righteousness” is to be awarded to the aforementioned idiots who generated the fact free, but politically useful tale.» In this context, Glenn, even if Lincoln never did say that «you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time» (rather it seems to have been a chap named Jacques Abbadie who wrote … ont pû tromper quelques hommes, ou les tromper tous dans certains lieux & en certains tems, mais non pas tous les hommes, dans tous les lieux & dans tous les siécles in a work published in 1684), but I do take some comfort from the adage. On the other hand, the people pushing that «Russia hacked the US elections» meme just need to fool a sufficient number of people for a sufficiently long period of time, in which endeavour it would seem they have succeeded….
McCarthyism 2.0 is as ugly a spectacle as the original version, which I happened to have witnessed, was….
Henri
«Look up debate at Dictionary.com
late 14c., “to quarrel, dispute,” also “discuss, deliberate upon the pros and cons of,” from Old French debatre (13c., Modern French débattre), originally “to fight,” from de- “down, completely” (see de-) + batre “to beat,” from Latin battuere “beat” (see batter (v.)). Related: Debated; debating.» You do realise, Glenn, that at least one of our more intellectual interlocutors here believes that «debate» means to post remarks of the type «yo mamma …» and then loudly proclaim herself/himself a «winner»….
Wonder what Robert Burns would say about that particular louse ?… 😉
Henri
Yeah – to use the words of Shakespeare, I’d say FU and the horse you rode in with. Sorry dude, but you are really boring.
Why, henri – I’m surprised to see you posting on this subject. We already have a conversation going – you remember, twenty bucks and a free answer, all you have to do is to give a straight answer to a simple question?
We’ve even got a mediator standing by…
@ CrazyH –
“We’ve even got a mediator standing by…”
*
I regret that my attempt at arbitration failed miserably. I tried; and I was disappointed that it didn’t lead to a definitive and amicable solution.
In view of today’s testimony, I am also curious to hear an explanation.
And I do appreciate it, derlehrer.
I *am* interested in discussion – that’s why I post here. But discussion is a two-way street, give & take; question & answer; argument & rebuttal; facts & logic. Anything else is merely noise, an annoyance and a waste of bandwidth.
@ CrazyH –
“I *am* interested in discussion – that’s why I post here.”
*
I’m with you on that. I learn from all the participants, because I don’t have all the information. I have to “cut & paste” from what I read here. But I can’t read it if it isn’t posted.
(hint! hint!)
I’m probably the first person in history who ever made henri STFU. I call that a win.
😀 😀 😀
@ CrazyH –
“I call that a win.”
*
I tend to disagree. I’d call it a stalemate.
Let’s continue the discussion. There is, after all, some common ground.
🙂
> I’d call it a stalemate.
Grumble. Grumble-mumble. Grumble-mumble-rumble-fumble. Rassa-frassin friggin-rackin*. (eh-hem, “I accept the mediator’s decision”)
> Let’s continue the discussion
‘k
*Yosemite Sam, to the best of my misrememberance.
STFU CH Mouth breathing conservative.
Now I WIN!
Lets play again.
debate (v.)
Look up debate at Dictionary.com
late 14c., “to quarrel, dispute,” also “discuss, deliberate upon the pros and cons of,” from Old French debatre (13c., Modern French débattre), originally “to fight,” from de- “down, completely” (see de-) + batre “to beat,” from Latin battuere “beat” (see batter (v.)). Related: Debated; debating.
I am thoroughly disappointed Glenn.
Would you accept mediation?
> “discuss, deliberate upon the pros and cons of,”
Precisely.
I’ve seen several formal collegiate debates. I’ve never seen one where Con’s argument consisted solely of repeating the word “absurd” while mounting personal attacks on Pro.
I can, however, accurately estimate the number of debates which have been won with such tactics. In case it’s not self evident: “zero.”
If you decline to defend your propositions in a logical, factual, manner you lose by forfeit. Ergo – I win. It’s nowhere near as satisfying as beating someone with facts and logic – but it appears that I do not have that option in this forum.
Sad.
Thank you, henri!
That is a perfect example of a factless, logicless, ad hominem attack. An evasion in response to a charge of evasion; an ad hominem attack in response to a charge of (ad hominism?); and the 47th time you have clicked the ‘reply’ button without actually replying. It presents no pros or cons, no discussion, no facts or logic. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
If, at any time, you would actually like to discuss this matter I stand ready.
BTW, yo mamma says “hi”
Complete lameness – “Thrilla in where?” Ted needs to take a vacation and stop for a bit. He obviously doesn’t know how to deal with a completely direct liar and asshole – he ‘dances’ around the idea and thinks he can be cute or more offensive. Sorry Ted; when the going gets tough, the tough stop being politically correct and kill the other MFer’s. Yes sir – I am suggesting violence – I’m off of this lame website. You other guys can discuss political philosophy and argue with each other.
See you later, Alligator! 🙂
e-hem. “… a perfect example of a factless, logicless, ad hominem attack”
Ad hominem? Hey, CrazyH, have you ever even considered the idea that you might be typing before you are thinking. This is the reason why I am leaving this forum. It’s full of bedbugs and lice that want to pontificate and be “eduamakating” us about history and concepts.
I am not saying that some of you dudes are wrong or incorrect. I’m simply saying that you have your own agendas and really don’t give a fuck about anything except being ‘right’ – ala the soviet mind.
eh-hem. eh-HEM. :cough:
Why are you reading a response on a website you no longer visit?
@ CrazyH –
Why are you responding to an a-hole who is no longer present????
😀
Did you hear something? Nah, must have just been the wind.
You guys are really weird – what in the hell makes you type this crap? I think that you losers have nothing else to do and are addicted to ‘whining on websites’. You can’t get off your butts to really do anything, can you? 🙂
@ CrazyH –
“Did you hear something? Nah, must have just been the wind.”
*
That wind must have come from the dog in the corner. That’s what they all say.
😀
“The consequences of the dearth of fact-based intelligence linking the GRU to meddling in the 2016 election are many. It exposes the decision by President Obama to single out the GRU for sanctions last December as fraudulent in nature and politically motivated, since it sustained an attribution by CrowdStrike that was not founded in hard fact, but rather paid for by DNC dollars.”—Scott Ritter
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/leaked_nsa_report_short_on_facts_proves_little_in_russiagate_case_20170607
“Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. … The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations.”
That’s a pretty definitive statement, even if it doesn’t offer any hard evidence in & of itself. However, from the article you referenced, “Green stands for “confirmed information.” Most of the technical details reported on fall into this category.”
I’ll ask you the same question henri’s been evading for months:
Multiple intelligence agencies – foreign and domestic – as well as multiple private cybersecurity firms have stated that Podasta’s emails were obtained via a spearphishing attack mounted by Fancy Bear.
Q: Why would they do that?
We’ve all seen the various agencies lie before, but never all of them in agreement. Nor is there any incentive for private firms to lie – they’d ruin their reputations if it came to light.
“We’ve all seen the various agencies lie before, but never all of them in agreement. Nor is there any incentive for private firms to lie – they’d ruin their reputations if it came to light”
That these agencies and private contract firms have not already ruined their reputations in your eyes speaks volumes.
The matter of faith in the character of these organizations will inform one’s opinion, and will only be altered by one’s willing consent.
I could give you reasons to doubt them, but I’m sure you have already encountered them and found them lacking.
I have no hope or expectation of changing the fundamental beliefs of others; as for me, my faith in these institutions is non-existent, and that which is non-existent will not be altered, but must be created ex nihilo.
Any attempt to instill your species of faith in me will be as futile as would my attempt to inspire doubt in you.
You may present to me your reasons for your faith in them, but I doubt your list of reasons will overcome my accretion of doubts relative to them, and elevate me to the level of true-believership necessary to accommodate beliefs to be held in the absence of evidence.
What is the basis of your lack of trust in the private agencies? Crowdstrike, Fidelis, Mandiant, SecureWorks and ThreatConnect are all well respected in the field, if they were in on some (conspiracy? hoax?) they’d ruin their reputations and stop making money. That is a very strong disincentive. OTOH, if there was a conspiracy any one of those players could become rock stars by exposing it. Not only would they look like heroes, but they’d eliminate hell of a lot of their competition in one fell swoop.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept that recognized experts in the field are, indeed, experts in the field. If you do have any evidence to the contrary, please post it here, otherwise my point stands.
You have merely asserted that they all are (lying?) – yet you cannot give one, single, credible reason why they would do so. That speaks volumes about your decision making process, you’ve come to a strong conclusion with no evidence whatsoever to support your version of events. Any prosecutor must prove motive, means, and opportunity; we have an obvious motive for ‘pro’ but *zero* motive for ‘con.’
Evidence? Let’s start with Podesta’s emails. He didn’t leak them – we can be 99.999% sure that they were hacked. They only remaining question is ‘whodunnit’?
That multiple experts in the field agree on not only the players but the methods is in itself evidence. Simply stating your disagreement with their conclusion in no way invalidates it unless you can present some sort of evidence or explanation.
The leaked NSA documents do contain hard facts, in spite of some editorialists’ comments to the contrary. I posted a link – read it yourself.
Every day we hear new revelations about TrumpCo’s clandestine meetings with Russians. It seems pretty clear to me that SOMEthing’s going on.
Then there’s Comey’s surprise firing, which Trump has already admitted had something to do with the Russian investigation. On that day, my opinion of Russia-gate went from “possible” to “probable” (not “certain” – merely ‘probable’)
The repeated assertion that there is no evidence is absurd on its face. There’s actually quite a lot of evidence, and every bit is well documented:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
@ CrazyH –
“I’ll ask you the same question henri’s been evading for months:
Multiple intelligence agencies – foreign and domestic – as well as multiple private cybersecurity firms have stated that Podasta’s emails were obtained via a spearphishing attack mounted by Fancy Bear.
Q: Why would they do that?”
*
I regret that my attempt at arbitration failed miserably. I tried; and I was disappointed that it didn’t lead to a definiti ve and amicable solution.
In view of today’s testimony, I am also curious to hear an explanation.
Here’s the doc:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766950-NSA-Report-on-Russia-Spearphishing.html
There is a lot of technical detail in it – no actual code, but they do get pretty specific on the malware that was attached to the emails.
My post above (Glenn on June 8, 2017 at 10:41 AM) has a link that you seem to have read.
You read it to mean something very different than I do, and there it stands.
FU Glenn about the consequences. For God’s sake, do you really think you have anything at all to say that isn’t derivative or already known?
On to the actual topic – Comey’s statement is in itself pretty damning, especially when you consider that Trump already implied that his firing had to do with the Russia investigation.
There are many things I’d like to see Trump impeached for – Obstruction of Justice isn’t as sexy as some, but ’twill suffice.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/james-comey-memos-testimony/index.html
I expect the impeachment will fail.
The Democratic Party could not even choose a Supreme Court Justice in the face of Republican opposition, and this has been one of the lesser-evil brand’s reasons for the disaffected to vote for them.
The failure to beat in an election, or impeach, an obvious moral idiot might even convince the disaffected of the worthlessness and the wastefulness of a vote for them in the next few elections.
There might even be an upside to this for the plebeians, in that the Democrats may allow a candidate with a progressive record (not mere rhetorical flourishes like Obama) on the ballot in their weakened condition.
> I expect the impeachment will fail.
I hope you’re wrong, but fear you’re right. The dummycrats have been woefully ineffectual so our only hope is that there are still a few ethical Repugs, or at least a few that see opportunity in burning Trump.
There have been 2 presidential impeachments, both Democrats facing a Republican Congress. The first one, Johnson, most of the Senate agreed he was guilty, but they were one vote short.
The second one, the Senate thought they HAD to have an investigation (none understood the Constitution), wasted months, then a large majority voted that Clinton was innocent as a new-born babe. (They should have found the impeachment not worth investigating, since they believed the charges were not grounds for conviction.)
How does Trump fit into either of those precedents? (Answer: he doesn’t.)
Comey wanted Pence as president. He’s furious his well played scheme has (so far) failed miserably. And will probably continue to fail.
Clapper testified under oath that the NSA can only investigate someone if they have probable cause that convinces an impartial judge. So there’s probable cause that Merkel is a Nazi???? Clapper lied under oath. But some still believe our intelligence agencies would never lie and if they say they have irrefutable proof that Trump tweeted Putin passwords to all the voting machines (but the proof is classified, so they can’t show it to anyone), they MUST be telling the TRVTH.
“a large majority voted that Clinton was innocent as a new-born babe.”
Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge.
That’s hardly a ‘large majority’ nor is a failure to prove guilt equivalent to a declaration of innocence. If every male who lied about his sex life lost his job, we’d have a 49.8% unemployment rate.
«But some still believe our intelligence agencies would never lie and if they say they have irrefutable proof that Trump tweeted Putin passwords to all the voting machines (but the proof is classified, so they can’t show it to anyone), they MUST be telling the TRVTH.» My understanding, as a foreigner, is that there are indeed those who believe US intelligence agencies «MUST be telling the TRVTH», but it should be pointed out that there are also those who pretend, in the face of incontravertable evidence, to believe that patent absurdity. Why ? Simply because they regard Mr Trump as such a threat to the neocon/neoliberal establishment that all means which can be used to remove that danger will be utilised. Either they don’t know or – to my mind more likely – they don’t care that using falsehoods propagated by the so-called «intelligence» agencies is the final nail in the coffin of that Republic about which illusions are taught about in the K-12 school system….
Henri
Looks like the Russian election conspiracy story has brought Clinton and Lynch back into the discussion.
Not Good for the Democrats. This inept bunch could stand to lose big when the Republicans expand the investigation to them.
Who is more inept and loses more? Trump or the Democrats?
“Comey said that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch had asked him to refer to the Clinton email probe as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation.”
“I don’t know whether it was intentional or not, but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate,” Comey said, referring to Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. “That gave me a queasy feeling,” he added.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/comey-describes-being-queasy-when-attorney-general-made-clinton-request/2017/06/08/fa9984bc-4c77-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.cb5f7aec009a
“in the face of incontravertable [!!!!SIC!!!!!!!]evidence, to believe that patent absurdity”
Wait … WHAT?!
There is no evidence whatsoever for ‘con’ – while there is a growing mountain of evidence for ‘pro.’ There haven’t even been any theories presented to account the for the publicly known facts. (despite my asking for that theory for the past two months)
To believe that six well-respected cybersecurity firms would risk their reputations on some ridiculous conspiracy is the very height of absurdity. To believe that multiple intelligence agencies are in league to help Democrats is ludicrous. To believe any of that with no evidence whatsoever is jaw-droppingly stupid.
You guys came to hardline conclusions based not on facts and logic, but rather because of Hillary. You are no different than the climate change deniers. They oppose not because they’ve studied the issue but simply because progressives are for it.
And that is absurd.
“There haven’t even been any theories presented to account for the publicly known facts. (despite my asking for that theory for the past two months)”
I am not prone to concoct Conspiracy Theories in the absence of facts, but rather to reserve judgment, simply because this is a case where proving a negative proves to be exceedingly difficult or impossible, and there are certainly more facts to be revealed, and many that may never be revealed.
You and I have the luxury of not having to take any irreversible action based on incomplete information, but like spectators at a sporting event, only to cheer our team on or hurl insults at the opposing team’s fans (plebeians).
We plebeians are for the most part mere spectators to the Political Thespians who have proven ability to get elected without demonstrating much ability to govern but by incitation of plebeians to racist attacks in either domestic or foreign spheres.
I heard a media commentator blame Comey, calling his involvement with the two parties his big mistake.
This is laughable, but who else could anyone blame? I would easily say both parties are to blame, but if Comey takes that position his career in government ends and he creates a whole new set of powerful enemies with personal vendettas.
It’s obvious that some here are convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt and are ready to proceed to the sentencing or execution stage.
Scott Ritter is one whose opinion I think is worthy of consideration because of his history of debunking Bush’s Conspiracy Theory about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
> I am not prone to concoct Conspiracy Theories in the absence of facts…
But you are prone to making definitive statements in the absence of facts. I see very little difference between the two behaviors.
“You are no different than the climate change deniers.”
What you call faith, I find a propensity for wishful thinking (less charitably, gullibility).
I said on this blog repeatedly that 2016 was the least important election of my life and that differences between both candidates were largely in rhetorical style and about whom the plebeians should hate (blame).
Obama let the Canadian oil pipeline proceed from south to north until the final months of his administration, knowing full well that his true believers would blame Trump when he reversed Obama’s midnight conversion.
Trump backed out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, but Canada and Australia opted in while expanding dirty oil and coal production.
The symbolism of a climate change agreement may win over the gullible with feel-good rhetoric but it will do nothing to deter climate change.
> What you call faith, I find a propensity for wishful thinking
I don’t recall saying anything about faith – but isn’t it your position that is wishful thinking? You have no facts, no logic, no explanation, not even so much as a hypothesis. So far as I can tell, your position is based solely on your wish to see Hillary discredited.
On the other side, we have facts, a hypothesis which explains them neatly, and the backing of experts in the field.
Since you can provide no explanation – let alone evidence – for your conclusions, I must assume that they are entirely faith-based. I’m an engineer – I’ll take facts and logic over faith any day.
Careful CH, your Conservative Democrat inner-Trump is showing.
“Conservative Democrat?!?!”
Them’s fightin’ words dude. (offered in the spirit of purely academic, humorous competition.)
Whatever – you fake ‘pundit’ – “testimony index”? Shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Drool yourself into oblivion with the other people on blogs that want to ‘tell’ everyone about shit they already be knowing.
Gosh darn! Ted, please stop these lame cartoons! Yeah, I know we’ve been trying to support you for years, ut you seem to have ‘lammed out’. Geeez – what in the hell is wrong with you? – Has the police state really dialed your number? I think so, and I hope you don’t get burnt, but I gotta leave, dude – cause you don’t seem to be Ted Rall anymore – the bullshit detector.
> I gotta leave, dude
You seem to be taking your own, sweet time doing so. Don’t let me delay you. So long. Sayonara. Buh-bye. Don’t worry that we won’t miss you. We won’t. Oh, are you still here? Why are you reading a response on a website you no longer visit?
Wasn’t there a post last week, bidding “Adieu” to this discussion board? Or am I so senile that I’ve confused it with a post from mhenriday? (Je plaisante, mon ami.) 😀
Goodbye to the lice and mice that Ted has depended on. He really needs to get another job – as he has become really lame at this profession. Did they cut off your nuts Ted? It sure looks like it. Pick up the change below the bottom of the payphone and your own respect. Get with it dude! When the going gets tough – the tough get going! See you later, Alligator! 🙂
Rick
” .. the tough get going!”
… While the not-tough talk about going
After all these years – I guess I should honestly say that while it has been interesting to type back and forth with you guys – that I am giving this up.Good luck to Ted and the fools and drools he encourages.
RickI
Hallelujah brothers, I have seen the light! Thanks to the awesomely magnificent rhetorical skills of my fellow interlocutorizors, the scales have been lifted from mine eyes and I can see the incontravertable TRVTH!
The FBI was very sad because Hillary lost. The CIA was very sad because Hillary lost. The NSA, Homeland Security, la gendarmerie, MI6, Interpol, das polizei CURE, U.N.C.L.E., Z.O.W.I.E. and meter maids were all very sad because Hillary lost. So they all had a secret meeting at an undisclosed location. They all used their secret handshakes and their secret decoder rings. Right then and there those dastards concocted a dastardly conspiracy! They would go back in time to hack Podesta’s emails and investigate Komrade Trumpovsky before he was even nominated.
Then – six months later (and at the precise moment when it would look the worst for Hillary Diane Rodham Herbert Walker Bush Clinton ) – the incompetent, lying, dastardly dastard James Brien Waldo Schwartz Comey Junior The Second told congress he was investigating the very person he was very sad about not being elected president next week. What a brilliant manoeuvre! With one missive he completely dispelled any and all possible suspicion that he was secretly on Hillary Rodham Diane Bertha Buttz Clinton’s side all along! Also, he was very sad.
Meanwhile, Crowdstrike, Fidelis, Mandiant, SecureWorks and ThreatConnect were all very sad that Hillary lost. They all wished that they could all tell the exact, same lie about those dastardly Russian dastards and Komrade Trumpovich. Sadly, they couldn’t because they would all lose their jobs and starve to death. Also, they had professional ethics. Then along came George Gutenberg Bible Schmidt Soros. He was very sad because Hillary lost. He gave each and every sad employee of each and every sad cybersecurity firm enough money that each and every one never had to work again. So all the sad employees marched forth and sang the exact, same lie in four-part harmony.
This incontravertable evidence is so supremely smartinalized that not everyone is able to comprehend it. One must have a very specific intelligence level in order to comprehend it. An intelligence level that is different than most people’s intelligence levels. The same sort of intelligence level that allows one to visualize the Imperial Wardrobe. Not everyone has that kind of intelligence level. Some interlocutorizationalists have that kind of intelligence level.
I do not have that kind of intelligence level.
Kannst Du das auf Englisch uebersetzen? Besonders das Wort “incontravertable”?
Danke.
😀 😀 😀 😀
I learned to spell the word incontravertable from a universally acclaimed language critic and all ’round cunning linguist.
The rest of the post is the only possible explanation for why multiple intelligence agencies – foreign and domestic – as well as multiple private cybersecurity firms have stated that Podesta’s emails were obtained via a spearphishing attack mounted by Fancy Bear.
Or rather, that’s the best understanding that my humble self is capable of, given the sublime logic offered up by those with a different intelligence level than my own. If I am incorrect in my interpretation, I stand ready to receive illumination from those worthy intelligentsia.
(Ugh. Costco house brand scotch has no flavor whatsoever. But it is cheap and I am unemployed…)
@ CrazyH –
I understood it all, first go-around. That’s the purpose of the four laughing faces (showing my appreciation).
Scotch? I buy Old James by the case, currently at $118.25 pesos per 750ml bottle (about $6.50 USD), discounted. See if you can find it. 🙂
Thanx for the appreciation. I did figure out the four laughs, but had to use Google translate for the Deutsch (It’s been a looooong time since high school)
I pay more than $118.25 pesos per 750ml bottle in TAX.
While the current Washington version of panem et circenses (much more circenses than panem, alas) seeks to divert people in the US from the issues at stake, reminders do creep up from time to time on the internet. Some of you might wish to heed this appeal to action, limited as its effect may be ; others will no doubt prefer to continue blaming those dastardly Russians and that satanic Mr Putin for all that’s wrong with the world, not least dear Ms Clinton’s loss in the late US presidential elections…. 😉
Henri
20 dollars.
1 Question.
I forgot.
What’s the question?
“Why do the International Intelligence Community, various Cybersecurity firms, media outlets, investigative journalists, meter maids, and Walt Disney’s frozen head all insist that Podesta’s emails were obtained via a spearphishing attack mounted by Fancy Bear in light of the incontravertable evidence that their explanation is absurd?”
A) They are all involved in a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy ‘cuz they’re all very sad that Hillary lost.
B) They all independently came to the exact, same, specific, wrong conclusion.
C) I already told you that but you were too stupid to understand.
D) … ?
Some of you will also find this <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/oliver-stone-talks-to-the-nation-about-his-new-documentary-the-putin-interviews/"Nation interview with Oliver Stone of interest ; others, of the ilk I describe above, will not…. 😉
Henri
1 Question.
20 Dollars.
Bad link above ; try this one….
Henri
Twenty $$
One Q?