Highmark

Oops. I think I've heard the same from our big city members here.

Isn't this the same guy who had a press conference complaining about the head Rep doing the same thing he did Sunday. What a hypocrite.

at CNN you goons who eat it up. The news media is not biased at all. Look at the headline then content in the article. What a fucking joke. THIS^^^ is the definition of fake news.

Dude was a freak. Seen a Instagram post on him with a hooker asking her to lick his butthole and farting on them.

What goes around comes around. Everything from the Nuclear option to spying on the competition. Hope Trump and GOP take the gloves off.

What goes around comes around.

Good God you are a tool.

No we can wait longer if you want. I'm just poking fun. Once done I'd rather you buy some food for the homeless or give to a homeless shelter or Pet Shelter instead anyway.

Then why answer at all ya dipshit.

In other words I can't answer honestly because I'll look more pathetic than I already do.

Do you approve of the sale of 20% of the US Uranium mining rights under the Obama Admin, supervised by SoS Clinton to a Russian Company owned by a Russian Oligarch? I mean forget the fact that while in office her Foundation accpeted millions from said Oligarch and other members of his company and hid it despite an agreement she had with her boss....you know the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Oh and lets not forget the $31+ million dollar donation from the Canadian middleman to the Clinton foundation.

Comments slinger? You know the definition of "While" don't you?

You are wrong. Open your eyes dude or come up with some other clever excuse. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html GRAPHIC Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States. OPEN GRAPHIC

Its not just about the deal, its about the donations and hiding them from the Obama admin. Damn dude wake up. Do you think it would be acceptable for the current State Department to sell off some of our oil rights to Russia? Would you be suspicious if the current SoS ran a charity that was receiving donations from a Russian Oligarch whose company benefited from the sale? Fuck you would shit yourself if this happened. Yes or no its a good deal a Russian Company owns 20% of the uranium mining rights in the US? Whose watch did that fall under?

Never been owned once on it. Fact is the Clinton Foundation took over $2.5 million dollars in donations from that company or should I say Oligarch and was given 20% of our Uranium mining rights. Whether or not she was the sole decision maker on that sale is not the point. It looks rotten as hell and the point is she took the money and hide it from her boss which she agreed not to do. If these donations were so acceptable why would she hide them from Obama? These facts are indisputable. Tell me you wouldn't fire an employee that did that to you? The Clinton Foundation is a huge reason she lost the election.

Yes Mr. Putin.

Where's the outrage. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#57414b573991 No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists K Street lobbyists are the symbol of Washington influence-peddling as they push government for favors, subsidies, exemptions, and other special treatment for their clients. Their customers include, in addition to domestic clients, foreign governments, oligarchs, fugitive speculators, and a rogue’s gallery of questionable figures. Washington lobbyists trade on their access to power. Many are former administration officials or members of Congress. If Trump fulfills his promise to “drain the swamp,” these influence peddlers would have nothing to sell. They are under attack. The media has focused not on K Street but on the Russian ties of President Donald Trump’s associates. They list the reprehensible Kremlin-associated figures for whom members of his inner circle worked, the most notorious being Viktor Yanukovich, the deposed president of Ukraine, and fugitive oligarch, Dymtro Firtash. But both of these “repulsive” figures were also advised by Democratic top dogs, who likely earned large multiples of what the “small fry” Trump associates took home. In pushing its Manchurian-candidate-Trump narrative, the media fail to mention the much deeper ties of Democratic lobbyists to Russia. Don’t worry, the media seems to say: Even though they are representing Russia, the lobbyists are good upstanding citizens, not like the Trump people. They can be trusted with such delicate matters. The media targeted former Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, for consulting for deposed Ukrainian president’s (Yanukovich’s) Party of the Regions. He also worked for billionaire oligarch, Firtash, who stands accused of skimming billions in the Ukraine gas trade in league with Russian oligarchs. The media also singled out Trump’s former national security advisor, General Michael Flynn, for attending a dinner with Putin and appearing on Russia’s foreign propaganda network RT. Trump’s own Russian ties were the subject of intense media coverage of an unverified opposition-research report purportedly prepared by an ex-British spy, who remains in hiding. It seems no enterprising reporter has tried to find him. The media’s focus on Trump’s Russian connections ignores the much more extensive and lucrative business relationships of top Democrats with Kremlin-associated oligarchs and companies. Thanks to the Panama Papers, we know that the Podesta Group (founded by John Podesta’s brother, Tony) lobbied for Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank. “Sberbank is the Kremlin, they don’t do anything major without Putin’s go-ahead, and they don’t tell him ‘no’ either,” explained a retired senior U.S. intelligence official. According to a Reuters report, Tony Podesta was “among the high-profile lobbyists registered to represent organizations backing Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich.” Among these was the European Center, which paid Podesta $900,000 for his lobbying. That’s not all: The busy Podesta Group also represented Uranium One, a uranium company acquired by the Russian government which received approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to mine for uranium in the U.S. and gave Russia twenty percent control of US uranium. The New York Times reported Uranium One’s chairman, Frank Guistra, made significant donations to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for one speech from a Russian investment bank that has “links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” Notably, Frank Giustra, the Clinton Foundation’s largest and most controversial donor, does not appear anywhere in Clinton’s “non-private” emails. It is possible that the emails of such key donors were automatically scrubbed to protect the Clinton Foundation. Let’s not leave out fugitive Ukrainian oligarch, Dymtro Firtash. He is represented by Democratic heavyweight lawyer, Lanny Davis, who accused Trump of “inviting Putin to commit espionage” (Trump’s quip: If Putin has Hillary’s emails, release them) but denies all wrongdoing by Hillary. That’s still not all: Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) read Kremlin propaganda into the Congressional Record, referring to Ukrainian militia as “repulsive Neo Nazis” in denying Ukrainian forces ManPad weapons. Conyers floor speech was surely a notable success of some Kremlin lobbyist. Lobbying for Russia is a bi-partisan activity. Gazprombank GPB, a subsidiary of Russia’s third largest bank, Gazprombank, is represented by former Sen. John Breaux, (D., La.), and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R., Miss.), as main lobbyists on “banking laws and regulations, including applicable sanctions.” The Breaux-Lott client is currently in the Treasury Department list of Russian firms prohibited from debt financing with U.S. banks. In his February 16 press conference, President Trump declared in response to the intensifying media drumbeat on his Russian connections: “I haven’t done anything for Russia.” K-Street lobbyists, on the other hand, have done a lot to help Russia. They greased the skids for a strategic deal (that required the Secretary of State’s approval) that multiplied the Kremlin’s command of world uranium supplies. They likely prevented the shipment of strategic weapons needed by Ukraine to repulse well-armed pro-Russian forces. A fugitive billionaire who robbed the Ukrainian people of billions is represented by one of the establishment’s most connected lawyers. Gazprombank GPB hired Breux and Lott to gain repeal of sanctions. That’s perfectly fine in Washington; they are playing according established “swamp rules” in their tailored suits and fine D.C. restaurants. General Flynn lost his job when the subject of sanctions was mentioned by the Russian ambassador in their telephone conversation, but that’s the way the media and Washington play. No wonder that Trump’s’ “drain the swamp” and anti-media messages resonate so well with mainstream America.

From the NYT's. Zero outrage from the Clinton voters. As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

So Manafort was fired by Trump. There is no evidence linking Manafort's personal dealings with Russia businessman and Trump himself. No evidence of Manafort being involved in the phishing scam that supposedly supplied access to the DNC's rigging of the Democrapic primary. The guy worked for a Russian businessman who was close to Putin. Last time I checked I don't see that as any more nefarious than the Clinton Foundation taking millions of dollars of donations from Russian businessmen then handing them the mining rights to 20% of the Uranium in the US.

AQ was born from us up and running away from Afghanistan after helping them defeat the Soviets. We along with SA spent billions to do it then up and left a country devastated by war. AQ rose from the rubble. When we left Afghanistan like 40% or more of the country was young men under 14 years of age. To some extent the same thing happened in Iraq after we pulled out a security void was created and ISIS was born. From there we also added money and arms to the build up in our actions to help Syrian "rebels" and oust Qaddafi from Libya. Typical almost anything we touch we fuck up.

Sorry but that doesn't fall under the definition of hypocrisy and choosing to break the law is choosing to have a "bad day." I don't disagree that we have too many egocentric power hungry people in law enforcement. That is an issue however that doesn't mean they are hypocritical for enforcing laws they do not break themselves.

Usually the AG makes the final call if one is appointed. You really think that is going to happen when the FBI is already investigating? Maybe you should read up on something before making a bet. Since Sessions recused himself from the Russia/Trump campaign investigations so it goes to his subordinate. Doubtful they will appoint one to investigate just him, again the FBI is already investigating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor Initiating a special prosecutor investigation[edit] The decision to appoint a special prosecutor rests with the attorney general (or acting attorney general), or historically, with the president. Under the independent counsel statute that expired in 1999, Congress could formally request the attorney general to appointment a special prosecutor (see role of legislative and judicial branches); however the law only required the attorney general to respond in writing with a decision and reasons, and in any event it is no longer in force.[16] Similarly, under the statute, the choice of who to appoint as special prosecutor was made by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals. This is no longer the case, and the decision of who to appoint now rests entirely with the attorney general. The current special counsel regulations specify that:[5] The attorney general sets the subject jurisdiction of the special counsel: The choice of who to appoint is to be made by the attorney general with the following guidelines:

So if they don't do pot how is that being hypocritical?

Want to talk about unqualified. Susan Rice was Obama's National Security Adviser, her background....a history and philosophy degree.

Yep, watch live PD. If a guy admits to having pot in the car they give them a civil offense and off they go. Lie about it and its criminal charges and off to jail. Attitude is huge with cops. Respect them and many of them will respect you. Not all but most.