Jump to content

SackMan518

Members
  • Content Count

    8,437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

SackMan518 last won the day on June 22

SackMan518 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,830 Excellent

About SackMan518

  • Rank
    Trusted News Source
  • Birthday 02/27/1975

Converted

  • How long have you been a Buffalo fan?
    30

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ok let's be real... We know incompetent Bobby M didn't write that op-ed or his famous report. It was all written by Andrew Weissman. Now we get to see him hemming and hawing and talking about things not being in his purview again while Graham pretends that he isn't RINO slime. Graham Plans to Invite Mueller to Testify on Russian Probe Senator Lindsey Graham is preparing to invite former Special Counsel Robert Mueller to testify before a Senate panel about the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to a spokesperson for the panel’s Republican majority. Graham of South Carolina, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweeted earlier that he would grant a prior request by Democrats on the panel -- made in 2019 -- for Mueller to appear. He’s been hinting at such a move for some time as a way to grill Mueller about the origins of the Russian probe and what many Republicans see as bias against President Donald Trump by the nation’s law enforcement agencies. Two days earlier Graham described the Mueller investigation as having been “biased and corrupt.” Graham finally acted after the publication on Saturday of an opinion piece in the Washington Post, in which Mueller defended his efforts against “broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper.” Mueller wrote that former campaign operative Roger Stone, whose sentence was commuted by Trump on Friday, “remains a convicted felon, and rightly so.” The comments were a rarity since Mueller was tapped to oversee the Russia probe in 2017, and departed as special counsel in 2019 once the investigation was complete. “Apparently Mr. Mueller is willing -- and also capable -- of defending the Mueller investigation,” Graham said in his tweet on Sunday. On Friday Graham, who’s up for re-election this year, tweeted that Trump was justified in commuting Stone’s 40-month prison sentence, adding that “over time we learn how biased and corrupt Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller probes were.” Crossfire Hurricane was the code name for the counterintelligence investigation undertaken by the FBI in 2016 and 2017 into possible links between Russia and Trump associates. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary panel wrote to Graham in May 2019 asking for Mueller to testify on his report, saying there were “at least 60 unanswered questions” they hoped the former FBI director could address.
  2. God forbid people have their own opinions and don't back a Marxist led organization using race as a fulcrum for unrest!
  3. In other news... REJECTED! You want to let these riots rage? Then don't expect the American taxpayer to bail you out. Feds deny Minnesota request for aid to rebuild after unrest The federal government has denied a request from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for federal funds to rebuild and repair fire damage from the unrest that followed George Floyd’s death. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Walz’s spokesman Teddy Tschann confirmed that the request for federal aid was denied, saying the governor is “disappointed.” Walz had asked President Donald Trump on July 2 to declare a “major disaster” in a request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency because of extensive damage to public infrastructure following the death of Floyd on May 25 after a white Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee against the handcuffed Black man’s neck for nearly eight minutes. Four since-fired officers have been charged in the case. A preliminary assessment of damage found more than $15 million of damages directly related to the fires. Around 1,500 businesses were damaged. Among the public structures destroyed was a Minneapolis police station that was a focus of the protests. “As we navigate one of the most difficult periods in our state’s history, we look for support from our federal government to help us through” Tschann said in a statement. Current estimates of the total damage exceed $500 million, the governor wrote in his disaster aid request.
  4. The only way to respond to these people unless you feel like being Reginald Denny Part Deux.
  5. Madison Avenue shop sues Governor Andrew Cuomo over looting The Gov’s being thrown a fat lawsuit. The thrower’s lawyer Sal Strazzullo. The damages? He estimates $100 million. Co-defendants: the NYPD, Commissioner Dermot Shea, NYC, Bill de Blasio, the state of New York and others. I’m told that an official Notice of Claim has been filed with the Court of Claims. The claimant? Domus Design Center aka DDC, 134 Madison Ave. The issue deals with May 29’s frightening night when looters, rioters and thieves terrorized our city, vandalized our streets, burglarized our shops. Strazzullo: Cuomo should have worried about hospital reform instead of bail reform. Getting a free pass, some criminals were not able to be detained pending trial and now we have looters. Who’d have imagined we’d have to board up our stores? We’re not in Afghanistan. Places like Saks Fifth, Louis Vuitton, Prada, Rolex being bombed out? “Where are our tax dollars going? Rocks, bricks thrown? Glass smashed? Merchandise stolen? Thrown out? People hurt? Millions lost? Businesses destroyed? Lives crushed? Not protecting commercial properties is negligence of duty. It’s looters against New York City and state. “Paying taxes that help pay the salary of the NYPD, we expect protection in return. Where was the city? The state? Officials failing to protect their residents? Government is responsible to protect its citizens and businesses against criminals who want to do bad. “Not every lawsuit is for money. This type of suit — about the city’s acts and omissions in failing to control or otherwise restrain violent protesters, which caused destruction to claimant’s retail store — is for a point. “This will be a class-action lawsuit. Costly. Because the others will come on board.”
  6. Just a refresher on the Stone case. President Trump Just Commuted Roger Stone's Sentence, and the Left Is Freaking Out Stone was convicted on seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering, and making false statements to Congress. He was sentenced in February to 40 months in prison. He has denied any wrongdoing and has appealed his conviction. “Mr. Stone, like every American, deserves a fair trial and every opportunity to vindicate himself before the courts,” McEnany said. Aside from the bogus origins of the investigation that led to Stone’s prosecution, one of the jurors, who served as foreperson on the jury during his trial, Tomeka Hart, apparently lied about her anti-Trump biases in order to get on the jury. Hart was a former Democratic congressional candidate, whose social media was full of anti-Trump sentiment. “She obviously had a prejudice against Roger Stone, a bias in favor of his prosecution, and an interest in seeing him convicted,” explained Andrew Napolitano back in February.
  7. Roger Stone, no. Terrorists, yes? FLASHBACK: Obama Pardoned Terrorist FALN Leader Oscar Lopez Rivera During the group’s heyday from 1974 to 1983, the FALN was responsible for more than 130 bombings across the United States, the deadliest of which was the 1975 Fraunces Tavern bombing in Manhattan that killed four people and wounded 63 more. In the following years, FALN members threatened to blow up U.S. nuclear facilities, kidnapped Democratic and Republican presidential campaign workers at gunpoint during the 1980 race, and even planned to kidnap President Reagan’s son Ron in 1981. The FALN’s stated purpose for all this mayhem and terror was to create a Marxist and independent government in Puerto Rico similar to that of the communist Castro regime in Cuba. Officials Criticize Clinton's Pardon of an Ex-Terrorist An unusual combination of New York political and law enforcement leaders have condemned former President Bill Clinton's pardon of Susan L. Rosenberg, a one-time member of the Weather Underground terrorist group who was charged in the notorious 1981 Brink's robbery in Rockland County that left a guard and two police officers dead. Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican, and United States Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat, were among those who criticized the pardon, as did Bernard B. Kerik, New York City's police commissioner, and David Trois, a Rockland County police union official. ''It sickened me,'' Mr. Kerik said yesterday of the pardon, one of 140 granted Saturday, the final day of Mr. Clinton's tenure. Ms. Rosenberg served 16 years in jail after she was found with a companion in New Jersey in 1984 unloading 740 pounds of dynamite and weapons, including a submachine gun, from a car. She admitted her role in the New Jersey case, in which she had planned to supply others with explosives for politically motivated bombings.
  8. Short answer, yes but I don't think it will be stunning. Are we being set up for another stunning Trump win? With five months until the election, things couldn’t look any worse for the president of the United States. His approval rating is down to 40%. People are getting tired of his antics and the insults he hurls at his opponents. The media is increasingly confident that, come November, the voters will elect a new chief executive. This might sound like June 2020, but I’m actually referring to June 1948 — when President Harry Truman, a Democrat, was running to keep his job against Republican Thomas Dewey. The similarities between the 1948 and 2020 elections are striking. Like President Trump, Truman often ruffled feathers with his salty language. At one point, Truman even described Dewey as a fascist, a term not taken lightly just three years after World War II. Just as with Trump, the media described Truman as desperate and unhinged. They mocked him for the more than 8,000 empty chairs at a speech he gave in Nebraska — presaging the coverage of Trump’s recent speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Almost everyone thought Truman would lose, including the president’s mother-in-law. A Newsweek poll reported 50 out of 50 politicos predicting a Dewey victory. But on Nov. 3, 1948, the world woke up to the stunning news that Truman had won. The experts were left struggling to make sense of how they got it so wrong. Today, we’re seeing poll after poll showing Trump trailing former Vice President Joe Biden. In the echo chamber of cable news and social media, there’s a growing consensus that Trump is headed for humiliating defeat. Are the pundits right, or are we moving toward another stunning win by a beleaguered incumbent? Could history be repeating itself? The 1948 election warns us that an upset is very possible. There are two dynamics at work in 2020 that were decisive that fateful year. The first is political staying power. Prior to 1948, the Democrats had won four straight presidential elections. Many observers assumed that they were due for a loss, especially with the GOP’s large gains in the 1946 midterm elections. The media, however, underestimated the strength of the Democrats’ New Deal coalition. While commentators were thinking in terms of political cycles and party turnover, they failed to consider the New Deal’s long-term appeal for its constituents. Today’s pundits might be making the same mistake with Trump’s 2016 coalition. Throughout the Mueller investigation, the impeachment process, the pandemic, and record unemployment, Trump’s approval rating in the RealClearPolitics average has remained surprisingly consistent (around the mid-to-low 40s), showing that at least 4 out of 10 people support the president regardless of whatever the opposition throws up. That may not be sufficient to guarantee victory, but it’s a precious asset in a general election — especially with Democratic enthusiasm for Biden comparatively low. The second factor is that people often vote for incumbent presidents based on certain intangibles (leadership skills or likability) despite the candidate’s perceived flaws or policy disagreements. The Washington Post alluded to this phenomenon after Truman’s victory: “The American people admire a man with courage even though they don’t always agree with him.” The voters might even give the opposing party control of Congress during the midterm elections to check that president, but they will still reelect a flawed incumbent because of their supposed charisma (see Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) or boldness (see Truman). Like Trump, Truman was seen as a fighter who was not afraid to go against the political establishment. And like Biden, Dewey was an uninspiring candidate who, because of overconfidence, played it safe and limited his public appearances. It is possible that in a dangerous and unpredictable world, voters will prefer a feisty and aggressive Trump over a lackluster Biden. Despite all of this, Biden could still win in November. But if history can teach us anything, it is that the experts can get it wrong. We don’t even have to go back to 1948. Exactly four years ago (in June 2016), Hillary Clinton led Trump in the polls by 5 percentage points. The night before the election, the intelligentsia was still confidently predicting a Clinton win. The next day, Trump stunned the world.
  9. Just to be clear for all you Kap supporters out there. Colin Kaepernick said it himself: His kneeling was meant to disrespect our nation itself Ex-quarterback Colin Kaepernick tweeted an Independence Day message reminding us that he always was a radical leftist, America-hating agitator. His national anthem stunt always was about deliberately dishonoring flag and country. Oh, and NFL superstar Drew Brees merits an apology from all those who criticized his original, thoughtful statement about why he would always stand for the anthem. “We reject your celebration of white supremacy and look forward to liberation for all,” tweeted Kaepernick about the Fourth of July, because, he said, “black people have been dehumanized, brutalized, criminalized and terrorized by America for centuries and are expected to join your commemoration of independence, while you enslaved our ancestors.” This precisely echoes the original reason he gave for beginning his protests at NFL games in 2016. “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he said then. This was not a protest against police violence and racism that just happened to occur during the anthem; it was specifically targeted at the anthem and flag so as to blame the country as such for the ills Kaepernick was protesting. The message was not that the nation per se had a flawed past and that vestiges remained in some people’s hearts and minds in a way that even well-intentioned laws and institutions had not yet eradicated. No, the message was that the institutions themselves were deliberately racist and oppressive and that the nation itself was unworthy of pride. So, yes, all of this “kneeling during the anthem” stuff was and is about “disrespecting the flag of the United States of America.” Everybody knows it. It is precisely and intentionally about that. If it were just about protesting racism and police misconduct, Kaepernick wouldn't say things like that. Also, there would be plenty of other ways to make that point without intruding on what always had been an aspirationally unifying civic ritual. As longtime sports columnist Jason Whitlock (who is black) wrote this week in disgust at Kaepernick, “It’s a divisive hot take packaged as righteous indignation.” Since then, Kaepernick has kept up a steady drumbeat of anti-American and even pro-communist statements and actions. He particularly likes radical-tinged clothing, such as socks depicting cops as pigs and a shirt proudly portraying Malcolm X meeting with Cuban mass murderer Fidel Castro, whom he complimented because of Cuba’s supposedly enlightened policies supporting education. He is likewise prone to sporting paraphernalia of the equally brutal and repressive Che Guevara. Four years ago, after the brief reign of players kneeling during the national anthem, most teams and players came to a worthy compromise: kneeling before the anthem but standing during it. That way, they emphasized the distinction between protesting racism and misconduct, on one hand, and insulting the nation itself, on the other. The clear recognition was that kneeling during the anthem itself would mean the latter. It was that understanding to which Brees, who had worthily joined the pre-anthem kneelers, was referring when he said he would never disrespect the flag or nation by refusing to stand at attention during the anthem. He then went on to express solidarity with those demanding fuller realization of civil rights. It was a reasonable stance then, completely unworthy of the abuse he suffered for it. Now comes Kaepernick with his new tweet asserting that Independence Day itself is a celebration of “white supremacy.” He is wrong now, and he was wrong in 2016. Anyone who joins his movement to kneel during the national anthem will continue to acquiesce in the fiction that this good nation is inherently unjust.
  10. Never give one inch to these fascist, techno-terrorists or they'll take 50 miles and honestly these people don't have a stomach for the fight so they'll move on to an easier target after a week and then happily buy those Goya products.
  11. Don't forget Biden's new $700M "Buy America" plan which is a rehash of an Obama failed campaign promise.
  12. Oh hey... remember that Steele guy? British court rules against Christopher Steele, orders damages paid to businessmen named in dossier British judge ruled Wednesday that Christopher Steele violated a data privacy law by failing to check the accuracy of information in his infamous dossier, ordering the former spy’s firm to pay damages to two businessmen he wrongly accused of making illicit payments in Russia. Justice Mark Warby of the High Court of England and Wales ordered Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to pay a modest 18,000 English pounds – about $22,596 in American currency – each to Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman as compensation for a violation of Britain’s Data Protection Act 1998 . Warby ruled that while Steele had a national security interest to share his intelligence with U.S. and British authorities, several of the allegations in Memo 112 of the Steele dossier were “inaccurate or misleading as a matter of fact.” The judge ruled Steele violated the law by failing to aggressively check the accuracy of one claim accusing Aven and Fridman of making illicit payments to Russia President Vladimir Putin before distributing it to various U.S. and British figures, including the FBI. “That is an allegation of serial criminal wrongdoing, over a prolonged period. Even in the limited and specific context of reporting intelligence for the purposes I have mentioned, and despite all the other factors I have listed, the steps taken to verify that proposition fell short of what would have been reasonable,” Warby ruled. “The allegation clearly called for closer attention, a more enquiring approach, and more energetic checking,” the judge added. The ruling involves a long-discredited claim in Steele’s dossier – repeatedly used by U.S. news media – that Russia’s Alfa Bank, connected to Aven and Fridman, was transmitting secret messages between Moscow and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. The FBI concluded the computer pings were not nefarious messages but rather routine behavior most likely connected to email spam. Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Congress last year he did not believe the allegations. Fridman hailed the ruling in a statement. “We are delighted with the outcome of this case and that Mr Justice Warby has determined what we have always known to be the case – that the contents of Memorandum 112 are inaccurate and misleading," he said. "Ever since these odious allegations were first made public in January 2017, my partners and I have been resolute and unwavering in our determination to prove that they are untrue, and through this case, we have finally succeeded in doing so.” Though a matter of British law, the ruling is likely to have impact as well in the United States, where the Justice Department continues to investigate the actions of the FBI in the Russia collusion probe, including its interactions with Steele and agents' honesty with the FISA court. The judge ruled that in Memo 112, one of several that made up Steele's dossier, there were six factually inaccurate or unproven claims that Steele provided from his alleged intelligence sources including that: the businessmen did not do favors for or receive favors from Putin as the memo claimed; Fridman and Aven did not provide informal foreign policy advice to the Russian leader as Steele alleged; Fridman did not meet with Putin in September 2016 as claimed by Steele's source; the businessman did not bribe Putin when he was Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg; And Fridman and Aven did not do Putin’s political bidding as the dossier alleged. The ruling further accentuates that much of the Steele dossier contained unproven Internet rumor or false information, some possible from Russian intelligence, as the Justice Department inspector general concluded last December. Nonetheless, the FBI used evidence from Steele's dossier to support a warrant targeting Trump campaign figures in four occasions, claiming to the court that agents had verified the information. The judge also concluded that Steele's notes of his first interaction with the FBI about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research project was Hillary Clinton's campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The FBI did not disclose that information to the court. The supposition that the Clinton campaign was the ultimate client "is in line with the FBI Note of 5 July 2016, which records Mr. Steele telling the FBI that Orbis had been instructed by Mr. [Glenn] Simpson of Fusion and 'Democratic Party Associates' but that 'the ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.' The FBI Note also indicates that Mr Steele had been told by that stage that Mrs Clinton herself was aware of what Orbis had been commissioned to do," Warby concluded. "I have little reliable evidence as to who exactly was the Ultimate Client, but I have enough to find that Perkins Coie were instructed by one or more people or organizations within the upper echelons of the Democratic Party, concerned to ensure Hillary Clinton’s election as President." the judge added.
×
×
  • Create New...