Oregon Standoff

Federal Overreach in Search of More Prison Time Cost Them a Conviction, Says Juror in Oregon's Malheur Wildlife Center Occupation Acquittal


Why did the jury in the trial of seven occupiers on trial for actions connected to the occupation earlier this year of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge acquit them?

Because of the specifics of what they were charged with. And what they were charged with is likely because of a federal desire to maximize the potential time they'd spend in prison.

Pace the hundreds of angry progressive in my social networking world in a bloody sad rage over the fact these folk didn't spend more time in jail than they already have in the process of trial, the mere act of being on federal property after closing hours, that is, the mere fact of the occupation itself, is not what they were charged with.

The specific charges, as noted here Thursday, were "conspiring to impede federal employees through intimidation, threat or force. Four had additional charges of having guns in a federal facility, and two were charged with theft of government property."

A juror spoke via email to Oregon Live about how that decision on the Feds' part, one almost certainly motivated by a desire to get potentially more prison time, messed them up:

"It should be known that all 12 jurors felt that this verdict was a statement regarding the various failures of the prosecution to prove 'conspiracy' in the count itself – and not any form of affirmation of the defense's various beliefs, actions or aspirations," Juror 4 wrote Friday in a lengthy email to The Oregonian/OregonLive….

Juror 4 noted the panel couldn't simply rely on the defendants' "defining actions" [that is, the occupation per se] to convict….

"But we were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind," the [juror] wrote. "It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout."….

Defense lawyers urged jurors in closing arguments not to mix-up the "effect" of the occupation – which undoubtedly kept federal employees from doing their jobs—from the "intent" of the occupiers…

"Inference, while possibly compelling, proved to be insulting or inadequate to 12 diversely situated people as a means to convict," the juror wrote. "The air of triumphalism that the prosecution brought was not lost on any of us, nor was it warranted given their burden of proof."…

It seems this juror has some of the same type of friends on social networking as I do:

[the juror] said he is "baffled" by what he described as observers' "flippant sentiments" in the wake of the jury's acquittals.

"Don't they know that 'not guilty' does not mean innocent?" he wrote. "It was not lost on us that our verdict(s) might inspire future actions that are regrettable, but that sort of thinking was not permitted when considering the charges before us."….

The smoking gun point proving the prosecutors tripped themselves up with their desire for vengeance on the occupiers:

… many of the jurors questioned the judge about why the federal government chose the "conspiracy charge." He said he learned that a potential alternate charge, such as criminal trespass, wouldn't have brought as significant a penalty.

The charge of conspiring to impede federal employees from carrying out their official work through intimidation, threat or force brings a maximum sentence of six years in prison.

Federal criminal trespass is at worst a misdemeanor, which generally has a maximum possible prison penalty of a year. The structure of the charges meant that if the conspiracy part wasn't proven, the specific gun charge also fell.

The juror's final word: "We all queried about alternative charges that could stick and were amazed that this 'conspiracy' charge seemed the best possible option."

NEXT: Should Libertarians Vote for Trump? Nick Gillespie Debates Walter Block on Nov. 1

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good for the jury

    1. Yeah. And a pox on the newspaper articles that all stated, in what were supposed to be factual news pieces, how this was a horrible miscarriage of justice. But I’d like to find out more about the defense attorney who was pepper sprayed right in the courtroom for demanding, a bit too energetically for the authorities, that his clients be immediately released. Aren’t defense attorneys supposed to put some emotion in their voices? What exactly did he do that merited, in the eyes of the court officers, the treatment he received?

      1. I’d like to find out more about the defense attorney who was pepper sprayed right in the courtroom for demanding, a bit too energetically for the authorities, that his clients be immediately released

        *Tased* actually.

        Or ‘cattle prodded’. But I think its mean to compare cattle to lawyers.

        In a bizarre ending to the trial, Marcus Mumford was wrestled to the ground by U.S. marshals and arrested after repeatedly yelling at a judge to let his client go free. U.S. District Judge Anna Brown said Bundy couldn’t leave because he’s going to a Nevada jail to face charges there.

        The U.S. Marshals Service says Mumford was cited for failure to comply with a federal lawful order and disturbance. He was released with a Jan. 6 date to return to court.

        Supervising deputy Eric Wahlstrom told The Oregonian/OregonLive that Mumford was shocked with a stun gun in a dry-stun mode. It was placed against him, but no probes were fired into his body.

        Mumford told reporters he grew up on a farm and is used to rough treatment.

        seriously tho, that’s a lawyer. What’s his hourly rate? I want his card.

        1. It’s like the extreme version of the defense bar trope that ‘you haven’t really paid your dues until you’ve been found in contempt by the judge.’ And either hauled off to the the jail some of them have in the courthouse, or are making a check out to XYZ fund for indigent legal services, etc…

          From what I’ve read, the judge was trying to call the Marshals off, and one of them got excited and, well we know what happens after that. I guess at least they didn’t shoot him…

          That said, things like who has outstanding warrants and holds from other jurisdictions, are things that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone—State or defense—at that stage in the proceedings.

          1. Check this legitimate ways to mak? money from home, working on your own time and being your own boss… Join the many successful people who have already used the system. Only reliable internet connection needed, no prior experience neccessary, that’s why where are here. Start here… http://www.Trends88.Com

          2. Check this legitimate ways to mak? money from home, working on your own time and being your own boss… Join the many successful people who have already used the system. Only reliable internet connection needed, no prior experience neccessary, that’s why where are here. Start here… http://www.Trends88.Com

        2. > “seriously tho, that’s a lawyer. What’s his hourly rate? I want his card”

          respect to this guy for his passion, but this would be the last guy in the world I would want on my side if i was facing a criminal charge. when its your ass in a cell the point is to get your freedom back, not blow your life savings so some schmuck can re-enact his favorite scene from Mr Smith Goes to Washington on your dime. i want a lawyer that has a working relationship with the prosecutors & judges on my docket. the court system in the US – despite all of the bullshit about it being “the best in the world”, etc – has outcomes that at best heavily & at worst entirely determined by the complete whim of tyrants who destroy peoples lives w/ the same emotional depth that actual human beings muster to delete a spam email. screaming at these monsters in their temple of doom accomplishes nothing other than ensuring you will not get what you want in court & just might get you physically beaten (as was the case here).

          1. “when its your ass in a cell the point is to get your freedom back, not blow your life savings so some schmuck can re-enact his favorite scene from Mr Smith Goes to Washington on your dime”

            Except he got an acquittal.

          2. I was kidding.

            my last lawyer was an ex-DA.

          3. > i want a lawyer that has a working relationship with the prosecutors

            You mean the kind that will “get you a really good plea deal”? If the prosecutor likes your attorney, you should wonder “Why does the prosecutor like my attorney?”


  2. They will all probably be charged with something else now.

    You can’t embarrass the King’s men.

    When is the trial for the person who shot the old rancher with his hands in the air ?

    Has the BLM heard about this ?

    1. RIP
      I honestly thought that was going to ignite some actual conversation. Or violence, luckily that was avoided. The people who were there had level heads that day.

      1. Tony managed to get his two and a half inches fully erect, so it’s not a total loss.

        1. That doesn’t sound like proggy politics at all. Every good leftist can only get erect using other people’s blood.

          He’s probably off fretting in a blue-balled impotent rage right now. Somewhere on Facebook, someone else is putting up with that insufferable prick.

      2. Wait until Hillary is in and Janet Reno reappears as SOS.

    2. They’ll have the IRS sicced on them.

    3. “Has the BLM heard about this?”

      Black Lives Matter of Bureau of Land Management?

      1. I gettum confused.

        Which one of them gets mad when rural white people with their hands up get shot ?

        1. That’s not funny, why am I laughing?

        2. Many Black Lives Matter activists made a lot of noise about the Zachary Hammond shooting.

          1. Granted, it appears the Hammond’s arm may not have been in the air until the officer lifted the corpse’s hand in order to high five it.

      2. Bureau of Lives Management

        1. Bureau of Land Matters

        2. Black Lives Management. They’re trying to keep blacks on the plantation.

      3. Bureau of Lives that Matter.

    4. The killing was ruled a good shoot so it’s a closed book. Despite moments before the state police shot and killed him, FBI agent apparently attempted to unlawfully kill him and other occupants of the vehicle and attempted to cover it up. Which in a free country, should further cast doubt on the state police troopers judgement and actions.

      1. “Which in a free country, should further cast doubt on the state police troopers judgement and actions.”

        Slandering of the SS will not be tolerated! Our gun wielding government cronies must be held on the highest pedestal to be worshipped. THE THIN BLUE LINE MUST BE HELD!
        -Average idiot

      2. Which is why I won’t shed a tear if any of them die in the “line of duty.”

        Or better yet, die with their dick stuck in a crack whore.

    5. When is the trial for the person who shot the old rancher with his hands in the air ?

      State and federal prosecutors in Idaho say there is insufficient evidence to convict the two Adams County sheriff’s deputies involved in the fatal shooting Nov. 1 of rancher Jack Yantis on the highway in front of his ranch.

      After several months of “investigation.” We investigated ourselves, and found we didn’t do anything wrong.

      1. When investigation really just means they waited until everyone forgot about it.

  3. OT

    Doing a little channel surfing and just saw a listing on MSNBC for a documentary titled:

    Hillary Clinton: It Takes a Country

    We are only 10 days away from the election. I though Citizens United and all that crap

    1. Media corporations are different from other corporations.

      1. Wrong. LEFTY media corporations are different from other corporations.

        Overturning Citizens United will only ever apply to right wing organizations.

    2. “Documentary” should be in sneer quotes.

    3. “It Takes a Country”…to…? put a bitch in jail?

      1. ‘it takes a cunt?’

        1. A gunt

    4. ‘Hillary Clinton: It Takes a Country”

      Is it about the Haiti relief effort and how to get you and your friends rich?

      1. “It Takes a Country” to properly fill her bank account. Guess she bankrupted the village already.

  4. Hillary Clinton: It Takes a Country

    So “It” is Hillary’s preferred pronoun? And isn’t It’s ambitions greater than just taking a country?

    1. It worked for Clara Bow.

      1. Would.

        I’m surprised you let his apostrophe abuse go without a peep.

        1. That wasn’t apostrophe abuse. For “It’s” read “Hillary’s”.

          1. The hell it isn’t. You yourself called “it” Hillary’s pronoun. The possessive has no apostrophe. “It” would only have an apostrophe if “it” were an actual name.

            1. I saw “It” as a name, not a pronoun.

              1. I’m going to have to go with Ted on this one. Whlie S is correct about the possessive form of it, if you are using “It” as a proper name and not a pronoun, you would use the apostrophe, just as you would with “John’s”.

        2. “his”

          DON’T OTHER ME

    2. Yes, yes “it” is.
      And “is” is Bill’s

  5. I believe SOP for the feds is to pile on charges to force a plea deal. And this time it blew up in their face.

    1. Good. That tactic is horse bologna.

    2. Hey, if 98% of the time they fold, and 1% of the time they kill themselves, the feds can live with the 1% that get off.

  6. … many of the jurors questioned the judge about why the federal government chose the “conspiracy charge.” He said he learned that a potential alternate charge, such as criminal trespass, wouldn’t have brought as significant a penalty.

    Why in the world would the judge answer such a question? That’s appeal material right there.

    1. Appeal what? Can’t appeal an acquittal.

  7. Progs have no principles. Contrast their reactions from the Oregon situation with the pipeline on private land. The pipeline protesters (who actually shot at officers) are much more in line with terrorism and fascism then a bunch of guys staying at an unmanned outpost

  8. This is jury nullification in action.

    Moar plz.

    1. Sadly we get it all the time when cops are the defendants.

    2. No. Jury nullification is where the jury agrees that the prosecution has met their burden of proof that the law was broken, but finds that the law is itself unjust or is being unjustly applied.

      In this case, the jury found that the prosecution had not proved that the law was broken. So it was not jury nullification.

      1. This is jury nullification, wrapped in good PR.

        1. LOL. Believe what you want.

        2. Claiming this was JN gives the prosecution more credit than they deserve. Somehow I don’t think you want to do that.

      2. I don’t know, given the 98% conviction rate, maybe they should get it on points!

  9. “The air of triumphalism that the prosecution brought was not lost on any of us, nor was it warranted given their burden of proof”.

    The same thing could be said about progressives generally on any given issue.

    The same thing could be said about the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    That’s why I’m gonna laugh if she loses.

    I may not stop laughing for weeks.

    1. While it would be glorious, I don’t see her losing.

  10. Looks like the Clinton campaign is going on the offensive trying to demonize Comey, and doesn’t “senior Justice Department officials” mean the Obama administration or the White House?

    “Mr. Podesta cited a Washington Post report on Saturday that said senior Justice Department officials had warned Mr. Comey the letter he sent to Congress on Friday wasn’t consistent with longstanding department practices. Under those practices, the agency doesn’t comment on ongoing investigations and avoids any steps that would be seen as trying to influence an election.

    “It’s now incumbent on Director Comey to immediately provide the American public the full story, or he should not have cracked open this door in the first place,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said.


    Hillary’s in a quandary.

    If Comey’s got some kryptonite, she needs to discredit him now.

    On the other hand, if he’s got nothing, then she needs to demand that he release it immediately.

    The Republicans in Congress would be all over this if they weren’t so anti-Trump.

    They could start hearings on Monday, have Comey explain why he reopened the case on national television, and keep the hearings going every day until election day.

    If Hillary wins, she’s gonna walk into office with a limp.

    1. And they should start impeachment hearings on Nov. 9th

    2. Comey is going to disappear

    3. If Hillary wins, she’s gonna walk into office with a limp.

      …but enough about the first dude.

    4. There are no good outcomes for Hillary on this.

      Great timing, too. Comey must have been under some pressure. (Heading off an agent revolting? Attack of conscience? Currying favor with President Trump? Who knows?)

      And right when her numbers are dropping, as the polling companies shift modes from “Prop up her sick ass” to “We’d better get more accurate so people will take us seriously in the future.” This reminds everyone of her incompetence, disregard for the laws, and general sleaziness. Only this time, it ensnares her right-hand gal and the wannabe kiddy-diddler ex-husband. So we’ve got sex and an extra dash of religious diversity goodness (a Methodist, a Jew, and a Muslim).

      Huma seems to have violated the form she signed about handling confidential docs when she left the State Department in 2013.

      She had a Yahoo email account, which suffered a huge data breach.

      I’ve read that she and Weiner shared the same computer (at least at times), and that it had no malware protection.

      Even her supporters are sick and tired of her scandals. They are on the defensive again, at just the wrong time. Another Wikileaks revelation or two, and if Trump can keep his foot out of his mouth, he’s in.

      1. Somebody explain “senior Justice Department officials” in that original quote..

        Who does the FBI director report to?

        Isn’t that just Loretta Lynch?

        Why is Loretta Lynch sticking her nose into this? Did Obama tell her to put pressure on Comey?

        If so, voters should know.

        So if they open a hearing on Comey this week in Congress, they should ask Loretta Lynch under oath about whether the President gave her any instructions on this.

        Voters should know.

        Or let her take the Fifth.

        Voters should know if she’s going to do that as well.

        1. “Senior Justice Department officials had warned Mr. Comey the letter he sent to Congress on Friday wasn’t consistent with longstanding department practices.”

          WTF is that about?

          1. It means Clinton’s minions in Justice, the ones who helped cover things up in July, aren’t happy with this development.

          2. “longstanding department practices.”

            The ones where they say no reasonable prosecutor and all that.

            Those practices

            1. So is it a longstanding practice for the Attorney General to interfere in the FBI’s ongoing criminal investigations?

          3. “Senior Justice Department officials had warned Mr. Comey the letter he sent to Congress on Friday wasn’t consistent with longstanding department practices.”

            WTF is that about?

            Thought there was a written or unwritten rule that DOJ wouldn’t interfere with elections by having a criminal investigation of one of the candidates ‘close’ to Election Day. I’ve no idea if that’s true, or where the boundaries of just what crimes get ignored, and how close, ‘close’ is, but that’s what I’ve read.

            Glad Comey got off the pot, but I’m not sure that he isn’t just declaring the investigation open in order to nail any potential leakers with obstruction of justice charges or worse. OTOH, wasn’t it the NY State Police that first got wind that Weiner’s devices had some of Hil’s/Huma’s missing emails on them? Maybe he was worried that: one of the State boys imaged the contents and was going to leak everything anyway, so get ahead of it, or he figured too many people knew about this crap, so get ahead of it, and start handing out immunity deals like they gave the server guys. (Where, unlike immunity in your typical federal prosecution, taking the 5th/ignoring investigators’ questions doesn’t quash the deal.)

            1. The Clinton machine and like-minded folk around the web have been exceptionally quick to pick this up and run with it. Dozens of writers who likely had no idea that the FBI and the DOJ were related in any way are penning pieces that angrily complain about “no FBI director in the last 50 years has done something like this” and the vaunted history of the FBI staying clear of elections.

              Except investigating elections fraud and poll access is an FBI thing. And of course the left thinks nothing of city district attorneys undertaking years-long politically motivated investigations against prominent republicans.

              1. The Clinton machine and like-minded folk around the web have been exceptionally quick to pick this up and run with it.

                Thanks to the Podesta emails, we already know they have a list of shills like Wolf Blitzer to push this line, too.

              2. Well we all know J. Edgar Hoover never got involved in politics when he was FBI Director… that stack of blackmail files he kept was just a coincidence.

    5. It doesn’t matter at this point. She’s going to win.

      Nobody other than the most deluded Democrat partisans believes that the whole purpose of the homebrew server wasn’t evading FOIA requests, or that she and her staff were not careless with national security information, or that mainstream media were not colluding with her campaign. That’s all old news and it is priced in to the polls.

      As disgusted as independents and many Dems are with HRC, they’re well aware that the alternative is a clown with a bad wig.

      1. Trump’s been winning Independents in the polls practically this entire time and still is.

        1. And they seem to be increasingly breaking his way.

          1. And it means precisely nothing. Nolo is right on this. Nobody gives a rats butt about any of this. They are on a team, that is all.

            It has been interesting to see people’s underlying team show through. I have plenty of “independent” friends and acquaintances who have been unswervingly drawn to one team or the other this cycle. They have no idea that this is happening to them, but you’ll hear them passionately espouse the latest talking points from one camp while poo-pooing any actual real concerns about their own camp.

            I’m amazed at how well this works.

            I have a woman close to me who is capital-D disgusted by Trump saying “pussy”, but refuses to even acknowledge that Bill Clinton has ever been accused of anything other than having an affair. And even the “affair” doesn’t include Gennifer Flowers, it only includes Lewinsky – and there was no imbalance of power, just consensual relations. She’s so on board that she won’t even look at articles that mention Broaddrick. It never happened.

            I know conservatives who are Trump guys that were ridiculing him this time last year. They can’t even remember this happening now. They can’t even see any of his policies as…. well, not conservative in any way.

            People in large groups are delusional and scary.

      2. Don’t call it “evading FOIA requests.” Call it “securing critical national secrets from the true enemies of the United States.” Not the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc, – those are allies – but the true enemies: The deplorable bitter clingers of flyover country who pose an existential threat to our fundamentally transformed and enlightened nation.

        1. The Russians and Chinese are adversaries. Republicans are the enemy.

      3. (This smells like Tulpa.)

        No, it isn’t all priced into the polls. And it reminds everyone how sleazy and incompetent she is. A majority of voters don’t want four years of this. Her lead is dropping fast. She’s putting money into WI, a supposedly “safe” state. She’s going into hiding for days. The MSM is flailing to try to decent her. Even paid CTR trolls are getting demoralized.

        I still think Trump will win.

        1. If people haven’t moved by now, they ain’t moving. Anything less than a dead body isn’t going to change things. And even then, that dead body would have to be a child. Maybe an infant sacrificed in a Satanic ritual.

          Team Clinton didn’t care about rape-rape, despite their heavy SJW roots that say that merely asking a woman out a second time is sexual harassment. Trump’s supporters didn’t care that he’s not with them on most issues. But he’s against Them in a loud and in-your-face way. And that was good enough.

          Trump’s people are never, ever going to vote for Clinton. The major reason they support Trump is because they can’t stand Clinton.

          Clinton’s people would never in a million years vote for Trump. They wouldn’t vote for a competent moderate like Romney, they ain’t votin’ for Trump.

          Plus, Trump people are reading Drudge and Fox while Clinton people are on HuffPo and MSNBC. Nobody is hearing a clear argument against their position. They are hearing cheerleaders for their side. This thing ain’t moving.

          The polls might be wrong, but people aren’t changing sides. That old adage seems to apply, it is all about turnout. And Clinton has a ground game. Trump doesn’t. So it will take a lot of passion and motivation to overcome NAACP, ACORN and Union buses.

    6. Comey has an internal revolt on his hands. This is him trying to keep a lid on before a bunch of his senior managers resign and start talking.

  11. Don’t they know that ‘not guilty’ does not mean innocent?


    1. Black Lives Matter did many of the same things–including open carry.

    2. CNN has an article up now claiming Bundy et al weren’t convicted for exactly that reason. No mention of overcharging or the responsibility of the prosecution to actually prove their case.

  12. It sounds like the prosecutors were relying on the idea that they could charge people with a complex and hard-to-prove violation of law, but get a conviction based on pathetic-appeal alone = Because Juries are Stupid

    Brian’s other piece drew attention to this =

    “At the end of the day, there is an element of common sense that demonstrates the guilt of these defendants,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight said during his closing arguments during the trial. “These defendants took over a wildlife refuge and it wasn’t theirs.”

    They are basically arguing against themselves when they say this, and admitting they have little in the way of proof of any conspiracy; they seem to just want to insinuate back from the outcome of the event itself that it is self-evident, which obviously isn’t what the law requires.

    1. “These defendants took over a wildlife refuge and it wasn’t theirs.”

      Was it sarcasmic who liked to say, “The public is everybody but you”?

      1. Then trespassing is what they should have been charged with.

  13. Off topic: My “friends” are showing me this article about Andrew Sullivan on Maher telling libertarians to abandon their principles and vote Clinton. Fuck and no.

    As someone who has never liked these people, who (has) always opposed them who still does not want to withdraw any of my criticisms about them, I am passionately in favor of her being elected President of the United States,” Sullivan said.

    “It’s the only adult thing to do.”

    Sullivan then called on Libertarians to abandon their principles and cast a vote for Secretary Clinton, so that Donald Trump will not become president.

    “If there are any Libertarians out there?this is not the time to express your libertarianism, this is the time to stop this monster (Donald Trump) from destroying our political system.”

    1. Probably doesn’t really understand libertarians… but may just be stupid.
      Needs to be on a poster with Fry.

      I’d imagine most libertarians would applaud the destruction of our political system.

      1. I’m thinking the author of that article doesn’t understand libertarians either, given that he describes Sullivan as a libertarian

        During an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday, noted English author Andrew Sullivan delivered a message to his fellow Libertarians about how they should cast their vote this November.

        Sullivan was actually decent at one point. But he’s been in the tank for Obama for 8 years.

        1. Is he still going on about Trig’s baby?

        2. In his profession, sucking up to the left is the safe bet. As long as you have no integrity, you’re fine. I don’t understand why libertarians were brought up at all.

      2. Indeed.

    2. “adult”

      Progs have no business using this word.

  14. I love it that the left is freaking out about the verdict. “But violating laws to make a political point is only OK when we do it!!”

    1. Yes, they are calling it white privilege.

      1. These same people will vote for a women under federal investigation.

  15. On the subject of ‘progessives on twitter moaning that justice wasn’t served’…

    I was long ago expecting people to make direct comparisons between the Malheur occupiers and The Dakota Access Pipeline protests…

    ….but they only seem to have taken notice of the issue now, after the acquittal, and only do so to suggest that (facepalm) Indians Are Being Treated Worse Than The Yokels

    (*except, you know, for little things like the yokel-spokesman who got *killed* by cops? and the dozens of major-paper editorials calling them terrorists? no, i guess they’ll skip those details)

    The 2 situations are in many ways mirror images of one another, yet no one seems to think there’s anything wrong with, on one hand, calling for Drone Killings of the Yokels, while on the other, Obama intercedes on behalf of the pipeline protesters, while a sympathetic press worries they might catch cold.

    and don’t tell me its just because the yokels were armed. Because the hippies have taken shots at cops now

    1. Update =

      Not only have the Dakota Pipeline Protestors shot at cops… they allegedly hit somebody

      “”Dakota Access Pipeline Shooting Victim Was An Armed Instigator, Protesters Claim“:

      A man who North Dakota authorities had said was shot by Dakota Access Pipeline protesters was actually an armed instigator linked to the pipeline company, Standing Rock Sioux tribe members said Friday.

      The sheriff’s office, which said Thursday the man was shot in one of two incidents involving gunfire during tumultuous protests against the pipeline, backpedaled on Friday and said the man wasn’t shot.

      The conflicting new claims called into question accounts of Thursday’s chaotic demonstration, in which 142 people were arrested as police in riot gear removed protesters from an encampment blocking the pipeline’s path.

      Bureau of Indian Affairs agents detained the man, whose name has not been released, and turned him over to the FBI…. The FBI did not respond to The Huffington Post’s inquiries.

      You’ve got armed people wearing camo, and various competing agencies involved, and yet no one seems to think a comparison with Malheur makes sense – even tho now the protestors @ DAP have a higher round-count

    2. They are fellow travelers.

      The pipeline crossing isnt on reservation land, it is upriver from the reservation. Therefore the Indians aren’t getting paid. I wonder if there wasn’t any negotiations that went on before the crossing spot was chosen that fell through (Indian tribes are nearly impossible to deal with).

      So now the Indians are attempting to hold up the construction, pitch a bitch and stomp their feet until they get paid to go away.

      In short, the indians are extorting money under false pretenses. This is something progs can identify with. They are fellow travelers.

      The Malheur protesters were standing on real principle. That is kryptonite to the left. That is something so dangerous it can never be allowed.

      1. Noted in previous post =

        Many members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe don’t give a fuck about the pipeline, hate the protestors, want everyone to shut up and go home

        1. Yes. Suthenboy is right about most of the 49 Tribes’s governments (not all, of course). But those are governments; we all know how governments roll and what kinds of people work for government.
          My SIL won a seat on the tribal council as part of a “throw the bums out ” coalition. Upon taking office, the new council promptly fired all the cronies of the previous council. They then, promptly, appointed their own cronies.
          In general, most tribal members resemble their neighbors, for example, in OK, the average tribal member will vote Republican, while the tribal members who work for government will vote Democrat. (That’s state and national elections, tribal elections are non-partisan).

          1. As an example of “how not to run a tribe” the C-A is pretty good. For “how to run a tribe”, my impression is that the Chickasaw tribe might be a good example, but that is based on very little, just personal impressions.

          2. Sorry, there are 566 tribes recognized by the federal government. 49 is the tribes of Israel. (Looks ashamed) I’m just a white boy trying to report what I learned. So, “49er” is the what they call the unofficial off site kegger at pow wows, it must be a “66er”.
            Anybody know more than I, and can help clear up my memory?

            1. I think you should smoke a bowl

              1. That, my friend, is an excellent idea.

            2. I’ve always heard the unofficial pow-wow kegger called a ’49’, but I have no idea where the term came from.

              Sometimes the term is used for any party with a lot of Indians and a lot of beer. I know a guy who had a 49 for his 49th birthday. It was held in a local bar during normal business (not a private party), but they did bring a drum.

              There were 12 tribes of Israel– actually 13, if you count all the ones named in the Bible, including the Levites, which were more of a caste. But they always insisted there were exactly 12.

              I don’t know enough about any of the tribal governments to say which ones are well-run, but the Chickasaw sure run a lot of ads on TV bragging about how great they are.

              1. See, it is called a 49, I was right. Thank you. I’d call my wife’s family and ask them, but, God, what a bunch of bitches.

        2. Many does not mean all. I am just speculating based on past experience and the near certainty that when there is money to be had some will step foreword from every group to take advantage. It could be ten guys driving this protest and the hippie douches are just their useful idiots. The rest of the tribe may just want to be left alone.

    3. Hippies shooting at cops? The hive of scum endorses this gesture of resistance.

  16. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
    ——————>>> http://www.careerstoday100.com

  17. Federal criminal trespass is at worst a misdemeanor, which generally has a maximum possible prison penalty of a year. The structure of the charges meant that if the conspiracy part wasn’t proven, the specific gun charge also fell.

    The juror’s final word: “We all queried about alternative charges that could stick and were amazed that this ‘conspiracy’ charge seemed the best possible option.”

    Look for new legislation making trespass on federal land a capital offense.

    1. That would be leaving money on the table. Given that the Dems will control the executive branch for the foreseeable future, might as well make everything a felony and let the DOJ pick and choose who to prosecute based on their politics.

  18. Seen online: “Hillary is now heavily favored in many key battleground states… such as Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.”

    1. She’s a terrible candidate, and she’s winning. Says something about your guy, doesn’t it?

      1. “Winning” if you assume Democratic turnout like 2008, Tulpa.

        1. Republican turnout looks to be like 1944, so that’s hardly necessary.

      2. “Our guy” will be lucky to get 5% of the popular vote, and even luckier to get over 50% of the libertarian vote.
        As for Trump, well, he’s not spending any money, has a campaign that is run like amateur hour at the local step club, is absolutely a horrible person, and is still with striking distance of winning.
        What does that say about your candidate?

        1. * strip club

        2. Mr. Papaya is a Trump supporter, so no, that’s not his guy.

          I don’t have a candidate. You may have noticed I don’t have a rosy impression of the Secretary of Bathroom Closet Servers.

          1. You are misrepresenting Papaya. Or I am interpreting his comments incorrectly.
            I believe that there is a large contingent of commentators who believe that, while Mr Trump is nowhere near an ideal candidate, because of his position as the candidate of one of the two major parties, he is the best chance of preventing Hillary Clinton from being elected, and that, because she is so absolutely corrupt and vile, voting for Trump is the ethical thing to do.
            You may disagree, but I don’t recall any large amount of enthusiasm for Trump, either from Papaya, or most other commentators here, and so am forced to conclude that you are purposefully being dishonest.

            1. while Mr Trump is nowhere near an ideal candidate, because of his position as the candidate of one of the two major parties, he is the best chance of preventing Hillary Clinton from being elected, and that, because she is so absolutely corrupt and vile, voting for Trump is the ethical thing to do.

              Which means they support Trump.

              No doubt there are people here who are not in love with the guy, though the zeal with which many commenters here were defending him after the pussy-grabbing comments were revealed makes me wonder if they are. Especially the folks who had been saying that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick based solely on her say-so, then turned on a dime and said Trump’s sexual assault accusers were just lying gold-digging whores.

              1. None of Trump’s supposed offenses, many of which have already been discredited, rise to level of Bill Clinton’s rapes.

              2. What are you talking about? Trump is a pussy cat next to Bill Clinton and comparing the two is disingenuous. Now there’s a story that screams ‘plant’. It may appear they’re similar but they are not.

              3. Nolo Pretendere|10.29.16 @ 11:42PM

                Shut the fuck up, Tulpa.

            2. DenverJ is correct. I am trying to make lemonade from lemons here. Trump is not “my guy” except in the sense of being the lesser evil, with some possible upsides.

              1. The election result that yields the most liberty is Hillary losing. Period. Gary can’t win—though it’d be hilarious trying to watch him govern, so vote in a way that maximizes the chances of Hillary losing. Ergo, vote for the Orange Messiah.

                Ugh. Why in hell couldn’t Cruz or Paul or Walker have beaten this guy?

                1. The election result that yields the most liberty is Hillary losing. Period.

                  I disagree. Trump is just as bad for liberty as she is, just in a different way. Just like her he wants the government to decide arbitrarily whether you can buy a gun, and has no desire to get spending under control. Even worse than her, he wants to erect barriers to trade, to deny entry into the US on the basis of religion, to break all our military alliances.

                  Yeah, she did a bunch of terrible things as Secy of State. I’ll be the first to condemn her for them. But Trump should hardly get credit for not doing things he wasn’t in a position to do. His general lack of character and scatterbrainedness leads me to believe he probably would have done similarly corrupt and dishonest things were he in that position.

                  In the end, it comes down to two considerations which are basically a wash. Trump would face more opposition from the media, which would be good. But like a child he cannot be trusted to know that fire burns. At least Hillary has some self-preservation instinct; Trump clearly does not, from his behavior in this campaign as well as in his earlier life. That makes giving him power extremey dangerous.

                  What gets me is that some of the same people who opposed Romney in 2012 because he wasn’t perfect are now supporting a lifelong liberal Democrat who makes Romney look like Lysander Spooner on liberty issues.

                  1. Well, here’s the thing: There IS a track record on Hillary – and it’s a horrible one. One rooted in incompetence and corruption. Plus this sociopath clearly lacks principles or ethics. It’s all there.

                  2. Yeah, she did a bunch of terrible things as Secy of State. I’ll be the first to condemn her for them. But Trump should hardly get credit for not doing things he wasn’t in a position to do. His general lack of character and scatterbrainedness leads me to believe he probably would have done similarly corrupt and dishonest things were he in that position.

                    This is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone suggest one person’s actual corruption is probably not as bad as someone else’s hypothetical performance in a counterfactual scenario.

                2. Why in hell couldn’t Cruz or Paul or Walker have beaten this guy?

                  Too many candidates in the early going, lots of free media coverage for Trump during the primaries, Dems crossing over to vote for the weakest GOP candidate (which they’ve done for several cycles, succeeding in ’08 also), shameless Trump support from talk show blowhards like Hannity and Limbaugh who love a candidate who says rash things like they do, the base’s frustration with the limpdick party leaders in Congress and wanting to send them a fuck-you card, general cowardice and shortsightedness on the part of the RNC, and more. Basically a perfect storm of suck.

                  1. The two biggest of those are the free media and the base’s frustration with the RINO leadership. If you want an outsider candidate to burn it all down, the media made it look like Trump was the most electable. Fiorina and Carson had no chance.

                    But what really sealed it for me wrt Trump was when, in the early going when it was clear Trump was running the show and not taking any advice from professionals, Trump attacked Cruz on the grounds that “nobody likes him”. Now, if you’re running as an anti-establishment candidate. how is “nobody likes him” not an endorsement of Cruz? That told me Trump was just saying whatever he felt would work and didn’t necessarily believe anything he said.

                    If you’re a Trump supporter on “burn it all down” grounds, it didn’t take much research to figure out Paul and Cruz and Walker were leaning in that direction and probably better general election candidates than Trump. But if you’re a LIV taking your cues from the media – you’re a LIV who doesn’t realize the media is going to be pushing their preferred candidate, the one the Dems can most easily defeat. You should have been smarter than that.

                3. Gary can’t win

                  You don’t vote for third party candidates because you believe that they will win. Are people still using this utterly pathetic excuse? Really?

              2. Trump is not “my guy” except in the sense of being the lesser evil, with some possible upsides.

                That makes you a Trump supporter.

                1. I guess that means you’re a Hillary supporter.

                2. Shut the fuck up, Tulpa.

        3. GayJay isn’t going to surpass his 2012 total.He’s in free fall on the way to zero. I wouldn’t be surprised if he finishes 4th behind Jill Stein. His best shot of outperforming his 2012 result is riding the coattails of all the marijuana ballot initiatives.

          1. And the hag finishes with (equal to or more than) 325 EC votes.
            SIV you’re not real smart and you keep proving it.

  19. 5% undecided at this point in 2012, 15% this time. Potential for shit show? High.

    1. This time around, undecideds are mostly people too embarrassed to say they’re voting for Hillary.

      Trump support is an acquired taste, not exactly something one can pick up in 9 days.

      1. Incorrect. Those are mostly shy Trump supporters, lambasted in the MSM for a year. Once they get into the voting booth: pow.

      2. It’s very trendy to swear you will vote for Hillary because of Trump being a racist who will get us into World War III. I overheard a group of normal looking adults making fun of Trump today at the zoo. A lot of people are going to vote for Trump who will never admit it, not even to their families.

        1. Now there’s a non sequitur. People make fun of Pee Wee Herman too — doesn’t mean they secretly think he would be a good president.

          One would expect that normal people would make fun of Trump — he’s a ridiculous person who openly says and does ridiculous things. Say what you will about Hillary, and I would agree with nearly all of it, but she at least has a modicum of sense and self-control.

      3. Nolo Pretendere|10.29.16 @ 11:07PM|#
        “This time around, undecideds are mostly people too embarrassed to say they’re voting for Hillary.”

        You’re a laugh riot, NP. Are you gonna be here all week, or just a one-night wonder proving you’re not real bright.
        Given this and the posts below, I am guessing this is a reappearance of the pathetic tulpa; hoping no one will recognize the continuing stupidity.

  20. Yeah, but how many people have already voted, and how many of the undecided will even vote?
    RCP has Hillary with… I think they just changed it… hmm… anyways, right now RCP is calling 252 electoral college votes for HRC, 126 for Trump, leaving 160 between 9 states. You need 270 electoral college votes to win. The popular vote is meaningless, other than as a general indicator.
    If Hillary wins two of the smaller states, or Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania, she wins.
    Also, I find Texas being undecided interesting. They must have been suffering the same influx of Californians that Colorado has.
    Californians: ruin your state, so leave, and work as hard as you can to ruin the state that you moved to.

    1. RCP 252 is with Texas as a tossup. Which, as a Texas resident in one of the three-four liberal enclaves in the state (Harris County), can tell you is bullshit. We’re breaking all early voting records in this county.. People are showing up to a 90 minute to two hour wait at many polling places—and they’re staying to vote anyway!

      You’re telling me they’re Hillary voters, eager to vote for the 5th term of the W Administration? Bullshit.

      I can’t help you with CO, or that weird district in Maine, or what Florida’s going to do, but Texas is going for Trump.

      1. They list anything with a margin less than 5 points as being a tossup. The rolling average has Trump ahead by 4.7 points there. Demographics are certainly moving in the Dems’ favor there, and once that process completes it’s game over for the GOP in presidential races.

        Either way, HRC’s 252 estimate doesn’t include TX so not sure what you’re upset about. There are states where Hillary is ahead by less than 5 and she’s not getting credit for those.

  21. “Don’t they know that ‘not guilty’ does not mean innocent?” he wrote. “It was not lost on us that our verdict(s) might inspire future actions that are regrettable, but that sort of thinking was not permitted when considering the charges before us.”….

    Quite a while ago, a friend served on a criminal jury regarding sex with a minor. After the trial, we had a drink and and a discussion of that (and other stuff; he was a buddy).
    He made it clear that the accused was in no way “innocent”; in fact he was pretty despicable and not someone you would choose to support. But, that was not the issue; was he guilty of the charges brought by the prosecution? Nope. and according to my friend, he fought that point through to a ‘not guilty’ verdict.
    We’ve lost contact over the years, but he remains someone I was pleased to call a friend.

    1. So you’re saying he was innocent of the charges brought against him.

      1. No, he was not guilty of the charges. Is that hard to understand?

        1. He was either guilty or innocent of the charges. There is no in-between.

          The jury’s verdict of “not guilty” really means “not proven guilty”, i.e. possibly guilty but the state failed to prove it.

          1. Christ, you’re as tiresome as Hihn, but with Hihn I don’t hope he has a brain aneurysm like I do with you.

            1. with Hihn I don’t hope he has a brain aneurysm

              He’s had a stroke, maybe several. It shows.

          2. “was he guilty of the charges brought by the prosecution. Nope”

            Are you deliberately being obtuse?

            1. Does a Botard need to be the center of attention?

      2. I believe that is exactly what he said. And that’s the point of this story: government over charges in order to gain plea bargain/increase penalty/improve politician’s record, then, because of said overreach, losses case.
        Did you read the article?

        1. DenverJ|10.29.16 @ 11:58PM|#
          “I believe that is exactly what he said.”
          Who said?
          If it was NP, no it was NOT what he s/he posted.
          The accused did not have to be innocent of anything at all; s/he had to be found “not guilty” of the charge. If that is a distinction with which you have problems, I suggest you (like NP) spend some time thinking. It is not difficult to grasp.

          1. This is what you said:

            was he guilty of the charges brought by the prosecution? Nope.

            That means he was innocent of the charges.

            The jury does not decide guilt or innocence — it decides whether guilt has been proven.

            1. Yet just above you assert that “not proving guilt” is the same as establishing innocence.

              Even Bo was sometimes aware when his hubris and stupidity collided.

            2. Are you intentionally contradicting yourself?

    2. “It was not lost on us that our verdict(s) might inspire future actions that are regrettable

      I’m worried that those “future actions”, will be “not bothering to arrest”.

  22. Pity we didn’t have a jury like this for the Morrisons. All this shit would never have happened.

  23. Those damn Icelanders sure count their votes slow. I hope somebody at Reason is staying up to cover the most important election of our lifetimes.

  24. I bought a 12 of Yuengling Black in solidarity with the LGBT policies of Donald J Trump. I wish it was the owners of Gruppo Modello facing a boycott for endorsing him.

    1. The ampersand ate the “Tan”

    2. the LGBT policies of Donald J Trump

      Which are? Honestly, I have no idea.

      1. Round them up and send them back to Lesbos.

  25. “Chicken’s Rights Activists” are the worst sort of bigots. I stand with the Hebrews regardless of whether they stand with game fowl sportsmen.

  26. “Hillary Clinton is turning to singers Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony to help rally voters in Florida.
    The Democrat is appearing at a packed outdoor concert with the performers on a rain-soaked night in Miami. It’s part of a series of concerts Clinton’s campaign is organizing with high-wattage stars in the election’s final days.”

    You bet!
    Low-info fans of various low-info celebrities are far more valid in choosing a prez than those who have looked at her activities!

    1. Jennifer Lopez is PuertoRican. Cubans hate Puertoricans. And Mexicans do as well and Mexicans really hate Lopez for pretending to be Mexican when she played Salena. Mexicans take Salina really seriously. I mean like as seriously as the hipster doofuses at reason take Lou Reed.

  27. “CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton reports that the source said a red flag was raised after FBI investigators discovered work-related emails of Clinton aide Huma Abedin during a review of the laptop shared by Abedin and former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York, who is under investigation for allegedly sexting with a 15-year-old girl.”
    The hag’s entire email tfc while she was S/o/S state is available to anyone who, well, had a Blackberry. But she’s not culpable, since her name is Clinton.

    1. I’m trying to find the song that sings the tale of the Clinton shit show.
      Oh. I think I have found it. =D
      No offence to Rufus, and our other, polite Canadian brothers, and sisters.

  28. That juror seems suspiciously articulate. How was he even impaneled in the first place?

    1. Are you pushing for last post now fist ?? =D

      1. My post is always the last important one.

  29. Damn the Clintons. Damn the Bushes. Damn Obama.
    Fuck the State.

  30. Just in time for Boss’s Day (October 17), some people have found the Kentucky graves of the relatives of Abraham Lincoln’s old boss.

  31. “‘Ellen Show’ sends two life-long Cubs fans to the World Series from Murphy’s Bleachers…

    “With their goggles on, the two women had to find the Cubs flag hidden inside of a deep dish pizza decorated with the Cubs logo using only their mouths.”

    1. Deep dish pizza is the best kind of pizza.

  32. link text“>There’s been a new study about you-know-what

    The American Academy of Pediatrics comments: “The new findings show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. Delay puts the child’s health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen.”

    1. The important statistic should be BJ count.

      If uncirc men get even one less on average over the course of a lifetime because women are in any way reluctant to kiss the anteater, then the mohel was worth it.

      Every blow is sacred
      Every one is great

      Just like with anything else, the question isn’t whether there are costs involved; it’s whether the costs are justified.

      1. That is a great way to look at it Ken

        1. It would be if circumcision didn’t make you less sensitive, which makes it sort of a wash.

          The saddest part is all these guys with mutilated dicks coming up with justifications for mutilating babies dicks, instead of just accepting that they’re a dying breed and their parents were wrong.

          1. It is extra sensitive after it gets infected and they have to multilate it later. Stop worshipping your dick. Your love only hurts it

            1. Yeah, I guess washing it is too hard.

              Any excuse will do though, even dumb ones.

  33. But my progressive friends assure me that these guys are terrorists on par with people who shoot up night clubs, bomb bus stations, an fly airplanes into buildings.

  34. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/20……html?_r=1

    Trump pulling away in Florida. At some point this week do Suderman’s friends and family put him in some kind of inpatient facility as a precaution against him hurting himself? My bet is they stage an intervention and commit him by Thursday.

    1. Of course they’re quick to point out the multiple paths to victory for the Dems that don’t involve Florida.

      1. Except that it is indictitive of a much larger trend.

  35. Are both Clinton and Trump jumping the gun by switching positions on Comey’s fidelity to the law so fast? I can’t believe they both can’t see the possibility that Comey is running interference for Hillary again. The NY FBI agents who were investigating Weiner found some of Hillary’s e-mails and Comey immediately jumps in and takes over that aspect of the investigation, presumably to let the same team in DC that had been investigating or “investigating” Hillary from the start investigate or “investigate” this new cache as well. So why now is Trump confident that Comey is investigating and Hillary whining about Comey “investigating”? Why are they assssuming Comey’s actions now are somehow going to wind up leading somewhere else than where his first actions led? I don’t understand it.

    1. When it comes to the Clintons, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The scenario you describe certainly sounds plausible, but then again, Comey may have just gotten something so damning that he couldn’t do anything but reopen the case. Ought to be a fun last week of the campaign.

      1. I’ve heard somebody saying that the way Microsoft’s Outlook works, if Huma opened Hillary’s e-mail account on that laptop, Hillary’s entire account got backed up by Outlook – which means there aren’t just a few e-mails that just got uncovered, it’s everything, the whole part of the 55,000 e-mails up to the point where Huma opened the account on that laptop, including everything that got wiped off the server. I have no idea if that’s true, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Yahoo and Microsoft (and Google and Apple and the NSA) have some sort of back-up copy of everything that’s ever passed within grasping distance of their tentacles.

    2. It’s a tangled web, J.

      Another thing I don’t understand is why it apparently takes so long to ascertain “significance” and “classification”. How long has this crap been under scrutiny? Take a good 24 hours and wrap it up.

      1. Well Rich, I think (assuming they are on the up and up) they have to compare the email from the wiener’s computer with the emails they already had to see if they can nail either Clinton or Abedin for lying to federal investigators when they said they gave all of their emails. They could have tens of thousands in the new batch and it seems nearly impossible to me that it doesnt contain some pretty damning stuff that team Clinton tried to dispose of.

        If they are not on the up and up they are probably trying to figure out if they can sweep it under the rug without being outed by Assange. They don’t know what he has got.

        1. if they can nail either Clinton or Abedin for lying to federal investigators when they said they gave all of their emails.

          No. they’ve already ignored multiple instances of that. If they wanted to catch anyone in perjury, they wouldn’t have immunized everyone under the sun, danced around asking direct questions, and let people testify with multiple parties present, etc.

          they’re not trying to catch anyone; they’re trying to clean up after them.

    3. Assuming that you are correct about Comey’s motives both candidates are trying to spin it in their favor. Clinton because merely being under investigation makes her look worse than she already does and Trump because it makes her look worse. If she looks worse it will help turn out more Trump voters, maybe sway some Clinton voters his way and it could suppress turnout for Clinton.

      That part I get. What I don’t get is how anyone thinks they could spin this to help Clinton or do anything for DOJ or FBI credibility. Sneaking around in the back of my head is the paranoid idea that they are creating a crisis deliberately on behalf of Obama. How he could turn this in his favor is beyond me unless they truly are insane and think they can pull off some kind of coup.

      1. I still want to know why “Justice Department officials” are writing letters to Comey putting pressure on him not to open an investigation.

        Those “Justice Department officials” can only be the Attorney General or acting on behalf of the Attorney General–and voters deserve to know if President Obama pressured the FBI director to ignore illegal activity to help Hillary get elected.

        Again, someone explain to me, how can it be alright for “Justice Department officials” to interfere in an ongoing criminal investigation?

        “Because interfering helps Hillary” is not sufficient justification.

        It’s election fixing.

        1. That part smells like a disinformation campaign to me.

          Comey is a proven shitweasel. It’s inconceivable that he’d buck the DOJ at this point.

          1. I don’t think the Clinton camp and the left in general would be reacting this way if they were on board with it. If I had to guess, it would be that Comey is trying to save his reputation since he knows he’s going to be forced to resign regardless of the election outcome. Hilary is not going to forgive him for his withering criticism in the announcement that he wasn’t recommending charges.

            Doesn’t matter anyway — they’re not going to produce anything new from this investigation in 8 days, and the existing material is already priced in to the polls. Hillary is going to win.

      2. I still haven’t completely given up on my prediction about President Joe Biden.

        And one of Hillary’s socks on CNN declared that Comey unprecedentedly publicly releasing this information this close to the election that there’s some new cache of e-mails when the e-mails haven’t even been examined because the FBI doesn’t even have a search warrant is clearly the actions of a GOP operative trying to swing the election.

        But Comey didn’t publicly release this information, he informed the Congressional committee investigating his investigation that he might have some new info relevant to the investigation. He wasn’t “unprecedentedly” making public statements on an ongoing investigation either. Just go to FBI.gov and there’s a whole category of press releases that include updates on on-going investigations.

        They’re also hitting on the “fruit of the poisoned tree” crap with the looking at the e-mails without a warrant thing. I’m pretty sure Huma had a warrant or a subpoena served demanding she turn over any device that had e-mails on it and the fact that she “forgot” about this laptop doesn’t change the fact that it was covered under the original warrant or subpoena, does it? If the cops have a warrant to search your house but don’t find the sliding panel in the back of the closet that leads to a hidden room, do they need to get a new warrant when somebody informs them of the fact that you’ve got a hidden room they didn’t find?

        1. They had a warrant to search Weiner’s laptop for the “other” illegal activity, so no poisoned tree.

          If the cops come to Suzy’s house with a warrant to search for a couch she was accused of stealing, and while looking for it they find a body that her husband murdered in the basement, Suzy’s husband can hardly get the evidence suppressed at his subsequent murder trial.

    4. Are both Clinton and Trump jumping the gun by switching positions on Comey’s fidelity to the law so fast? I can’t believe they both can’t see the possibility that Comey is running interference for Hillary again.

      It doesn’t matter. They’re both PRETENDING that what he’s doing is exactly what they desire for the sake of a PR claim.

      Hillary’s pretending that she’s being “attacked” for not reason by some crazies who are hiding the Truth from the public. Trump is pretending that Comey just announced a do-over.

      I agree with you that what Comey is really doing is trying to quash other people from announcing “there’s lots more hillary emails over here and the FBI ignored them”… and calling the credibility of the FBI into question. He’s getting ahead of other people trying to dictate the narrative. He can’t win.

      As i said yesterday, there’s little chance he can do anything further to satisfy either party so they are both simply going to try and jawbone reality until election day, and pretend its what they say it is. Hillary of course wants it that way despite begging “tell us everything!!”. Although i dont put it past Comey or Lynch to come out last minute *(without ever having the time to actually vet anything) and declare another faux-exoneration.

      1. I was trying to be optimistic. I know, I was just being naive instead. Sadly, you are right.

      2. But restarting the investigation is very damaging to Hillary. You are right in that he isn’t going to satisfy either side. So why do this and really make enemies of the Left?

      3. The damage is done once they started the investigation. They can’t do another fake exoneration and there is not time even if they could. This is devastating to Hillary. The only question is why did he do it?

    5. “I can’t believe they both can’t see the possibility that Comey is running interference for Hillary again. ”

      Well, mostly, it doesn’t make any sense.

      Even in your “Comey takes over because someone else would release” scenario, all he had to do was sit on the info for a week and a half. No one could have stopped him or forced his hand in any way.

      The “comey running interference again” is fever dreams and paranoia based on nothing intelligent.

      1. Yeah. He is not running interference. And he did not do this to help Hillary. Her supporters are going insane with rage over this for good reason

    6. He is not running interference for her. There is no need to do that. Why not just do nothing? What was there to interfere for?

      I think one of two things happened. Either they found something so bad that it doomed both him and Hillary and he knew it was going to be leaked or he has access to accurate polls that are showing Hillary in a free fall after the third debate and is acting to try and save himself.

  36. Seriously? You didn’t know?

    “absolutely never intended this to happen the way that it did. I never would have done this if I would have known the domino effect that follow(ed),”


    1. Social media is an attractive nuisance.

    2. I would’ve suspended him for that sweater.

    3. A student at the University of Central Arkansas

      that seems like a problem all by itself.

      “Being black is not a costume,” UCA senior Benton Johnson told KARK. “I instantly was upset. Like, I got angry because it was a clear and blanket disrespect.”

      I love how they go and get other students to pile-on and ‘shame’ *(i hate that term) the student by announcing their very-genuine feelings of “hurt and shock and OMG can’t even” because dood not cool, which is totally not just contrived to meet the social expectations of their peers. I TOO AM DEEPLY OFFENDED BY… UH… WHAT SOME DUDE DID… AT A PARTY.

      I suppose if he said, “i’m not in blackface = i’m a gay* coal miner!” it wouldn’t make a difference, because people so dearly want to be offended that they’ll never let an opportunity pass.

      (*because that sweater, yo)

      1. By the sweater, I’m guessing the costume was “Bill Cosby,” maybe?

        1. That’s pretty good guess. needs a pudding-pop accessory.

            1. I see your better-idea, and raise you = Pudding-pop covered in quaaludes

              These could make such great halloween costume-ideas if we didn’t live in such hysterical times.

              I think if i dress-up again anytime soon (*its not in the cards this year) I will have to be something completely metaphorical.

              my friend was fond of concept-costumes. He wore a priest’s outfit and put a stuffed seabird on his shoulder, some bird poop. He described himself as “A Frock of Seagulls”

  37. Daily Beast, but can you imagine how fast Hillary would’ve dumped any other than Huma? Also, I’m curious what other “devices” that household has hidden.


    1. What part of “Above the Law” does everyone not understand?

        1. He runs like a girl

    2. I’m curious what other “devices” that household has hidden.

      I am not.

        1. But Weiner isn’t interested in women of that age and Huma is—


        2. Is that Tony’s girlfriend?

        3. Torquemada is regretting being dead right now.

    3. “”I wish I thought about it at the time. As I said, I wasn’t perfect.””

      I pointed out the other day that Obama has made the ‘retrospective perfection’-defense into an art-form. Mistakes were never actually made = its just that in hindsight, we realize that it was possible to have done better, which is a shame, and we’re just as upset about that as you, obviously.

    4. If Putin’s aggressive stratagems are a fairly recent revelation to Americans (or, at least, those Americans willing to pay attention), the basic tactics are old news in France and much of the rest of Europe, where Moscow has been active for a long time helping to underwrite with money and propaganda the wave of populism sweeping the Continent.

      You mean like when they contributed a bunch of money to Trump’s foundation when he was Secretary of State in order to get him to push for approval of a deal whereby a Russian shell company with ties to FoV bought up mining rights to American uranium? Good thing we’ve got the diligent journalists over at The Daily Beast warning us of how corrupt that crook Trump is and bringing up all the dirt on the treasonous things he did selling out his country and his office when he was SoS. Did the Russians mention Trump’s private e-mail server he used to try and hide the on-going collaboration between the Trump foundation and the State Department wrt to his corrupt schemes?

  38. How ridiculous is it that the media was jumping all over Trump all week for talking about election fixing, and all the progressives want to talk about now is how Comey is fixing the election?

    Reason staff are gonna run out of angles on this election pretty soon, too. The narrative about Trump and his supporters being a bunch of violent brown shirts went up in smoke when those incidents turned out to be either fake victims on Hillary’s payroll or thugs who were paid by the Clinton campaign to instigate violence at Trump speeches and shut them down.

    They spent the last week writing about how Trump is a nutjob for thinking the election is fixed, and now the Justice Department is pressuring Comey not to reopen a criminal investigation for fear that doing so might reflect badly on Hillary during an election?

    Maybe they can find more porn stars who specialize in bukkake and gang bang videos to accuse Trump of being demeaning to women.

    P.S. HTTR

    1. “Maybe they can find more porn stars who specialize in bukkake and gang bang videos”

      Hey now! some of us have hobbies too

    2. Discrediting an accuser because she works in porn is pretty fucking gross. Is it even possible to sexually assault a porn actor, in your view?

      And Comey’s excuse for releasing this letter is to quell talk of election “rigging” post-election. In other words, he let Trump’s screeching intimidate him.

      1. Yeah that’s it, Trumptimidation. Because he’s the next Hitler.

        1. I would suggest that he be treated as the absurd manchild he is. If Comey is intimidated by him and his army of inbred losers, that’s Comey’s cowardice.

          1. Yeah. I doubt the Director of the FBI gives an errant fuck about Trumptimidation.

      2. Pay no attention to the fact that she bangs for money but then is complaining about some guy offering her money to bang

        1. Not only bangs, but as Ken won’t let us forget, apparently does gangbangs and bukkake, some of the most intentionally woman-demeaning shit out there. And I don’t wanna hear any of that “it’s art” crap. No it isn’t.

          1. I’m looking forward to future elections where this is SOP for both parties. Trotting out anyone willing to say they were molested by candidate X. Bread, Circuses and Bukkake.

            1. I hope you mean Bukkake Circuses and not Bukkake Bread (That’s what I said: Bukkake Bread)

              1. 20 Japanese midget clowns piling out of a VW Beetle straight into a Bukkake scene. Hmmm.

          2. It’s consensual.

            1. Is someone not propositioning her to get in front of a camera and get demeaned for money? Or does she do some kind of pro bono work?

              1. Are we pretending that this isn’t about Ken’s giant tears about Donald Trump’s political fortunes? As if this had been such a genteel affair until the porn actress came along.

                1. If Trump wins, I’ll turn on him like an abused Rottweiler every time he does anything unlibertarian.

                  I’ve outlined why he’s a better candidate than Hillary in a number of threads. Just because he’s better than Hillary doesn’t mean I support him beyond that.

                  Hillary accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State, and rewarding her with the White House for that will undermine average people’s support for the rule of law. They’ll be looking for a better strongman.

                  Hillary won’t sign any ObamaCare reform that doesn’t include a public option. A public option sets us firmly on the road to single payer. Donald Trump will sign ObamaCare reform that doesn’t include a public option.

                  Donald Trump won’t choose Supreme Court justices specifically because they’re hostile to the First and Second Amendments, but Hillary Clinton will.

                  Meanwhile, just because I prefer Trump to Hillary (for those reasons) doesn’t mean I’m wrong to question the credibility of a bukkake/gang bang porn star when she accuses Trump of being demeaning to women.

            2. “It’s consensual.”

              The question isn’t whether it should be illegal.

              The question isn’t whether it was consensual.

              The question is whether bukkake and gang bang videos are demeaning to women.

              1. Not in my opinion. What’s demeaning to women is telling them they can’t do gang bang porn because its unladylike.

                1. “Tony|10.30.16 @ 11:50AM|#

                  Not in my opinion. ”

                  Ahahhahahjaaj this fucking idiot thinks getting used as gym sock by the whole team isn’t degrading.

                  Which, he’s obviously lying about but will stick to, like this bitch after she got cum-dumped on.

                  1. Apparently the woman in question felt less degraded by being a cum dumpster than by a passing comment by Donald Trump.

                    1. “Apparently the woman in question felt less degraded”

                      Ah, the goal posts shift from actual you’re to what some whore “felt”.

                      Never change you pathetic disingenuous fuck.

                2. I didn’t say they couldn’t do them, you oaf.

                  I said it strains their credibility to criticize other people for being demeaning to women.

                  The woman makes money by bringing attention to herself that way.

                  There’s nothing wrong with the profit motive, but it does make people sometimes leverage the media for free advertising.

                  Look what happened to the search term “Jessica Drake” on October 22.


                  If you think her setting up a new website for her videos two days before her news conference was a coincidence, then you must think she’s stupid.

                  1. My only point is that it is obviously misogynistic to use a woman’s porn career as evidence that she’s lying about sexual impropriety directed to her. It’s textbook.

                    I’ll get upset over the political machinations once Trump stops lying and inciting lynch mobs on a constant basis.

                    1. Inciting lynch mobs…

                      Never change Tonysock

                    2. “My only point is that it is obviously misogynistic to use a woman’s porn career as evidence that she’s lying about sexual impropriety directed to her.”

                      That’s a fascinating theory for a couple of reasons:

                      1) I didn’t say she was lying about sexual impropriety. I questioned the credibility of her accusations of “uncontrollable misogyny, entitlement, and being a sexual assault apologist”.

                      2) She’s accusing Trump of kissing her.

                    3. Tony’s kind of the epitome of a low-information voter.

                      It is generally true that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

                      A lot of people think he’s stupid because there’s no way a smart person could come to the conclusions he does with the available information.

                      We tend to assume he’s familiar with the available information because he speaks with such conviction.

                      If he’s stupid, it’s because he speaks with conviction on issues when he has no idea what he’s talking about.

                      He knows Trump is ugly in his bones, and everything that happens in his world somehow confirms that one heartfelt belief. So, of course, everything he says is stupid from a normal person’s perspective. To understand what he’s saying, you’ve gotta share his aesthetic perspective.

                      You’ve gotta go full retard.

                    4. “My only point is that it is obviously misogynistic”

                      Except it isn’t.

          3. “And I don’t wanna hear any of that “it’s art” crap. No it isn’t.”


          4. Not only bangs, but as Ken won’t let us forget, apparently does gangbangs and bukkake, some of the most intentionally woman-demeaning shit out there.

            Hilarious. The more you elaborate on the disgustingness of her body of work, the worse your candidate looks for offering $10K to put his dick in that Sarlacc pit.

      3. “Discrediting an accuser because she works in porn is pretty fucking gross.”

        Depends on what we’re talking about her accusing him of, doesn’t it?

        “Drake accused the Republican presidential nominee of “uncontrollable misogyny, entitlement, and being a sexual assault apologist”


        A woman who makes bukkake and gang bang videos criticizing Trump for misogyny, sexual entitlement, and being a sexual assault apologist is a bit rich. Some people might argue that that if anything encourages misogyny, sexual entitlement, and apologizing for sexual assault, it might be making bukkake and gang bang videos. I wonder if any of those gang bang videos had a college fraternity theme?

        Anyway, that she put up a new website two days before she called her press conference doesn’t speak to her credibility either.

        Yeah, I’m judging her credibility on those accusations.

        It’s like watching Jeffrrey Dahmer accuse dairy consumers of being insensitive to animals.

      4. “Discrediting an accuser because she works in porn is pretty fucking gross”

        When you sell yourself, you don’t get to complain it is gross that people point out you’re for sale.

        1. When she uses accusations against other people of being demeaning to women to generate publicity for herself so that she can sell videos that she makes that are themselves demeaning to women, that certainly strains her credibility in those accusations.

          Whether she should be free to make whatever she wants so long as it’s all consensual is a separate question.

          She’s not trying to win any intellectual arguments with logical consistency either. She’s just generating publicity for herself and cashing in. That Tony (and other progressives) would find her credible is just plain ridiculous. It just goes to show that they’ll believe anything so long as it’s bad about Trump.

          They believed that Trump’s supporters were instigating violence at his speeches, too. When it turned out that the violence was instigated and/or faked by paid operatives of the Hillary Clinton campaign, conversely, they refused to believe anything bad about Hilary Clinton–just because it was bad about Hillary Clinton.

          It isn’t about engaging these people’s minds. It’s about aesthetics with them. They think Trump is ugly, and that’s all it boils down to. They’re emotional as hell, but they’re just arguing about what it is and isn’t pretty.

      5. In other words, he let Trump’s screeching intimidate him.

        LOL. Sheer fucking desperation in that talking point of yours.

  39. Gun dorks =

    Iraqi ‘super-special-something-unit’ (*all iraqi security forces you see in the photos of the mosul battle are asserted to be ‘Special’ in some way; “golden” is also sometimes employed) member recently seen carrying some bullpup rifle

    …. which seems odd; everything else they have seems to be US kit. Any guesses?

    My best guess is maybe some Croatian thing, which they’re known to have a few of.

    No comment on the do-rag.

    1. At least he doesn’t look like a Starship Trooper

        1. That’s an agressive belt buckle…but that mustache tho

          1. They are but a shadow of the Pakistani elite-troops, who outdo them magnificently in ‘stache grooming; don’t even start with the ascot. I am unsure if the eyeliner is standard-issue.

            1. Missed the belt in that photo. And the skirt! damn. Note also his 3 medals – presumably for staring-contest victories.

              1. Blue steel marksmanship

            2. What do they call a thousand-yard stare in countries that use the Unamerican system of measurement?

              1. The Kilometer-Glower?

    2. The secret service uses those.

      So does NATO.


      Funny thing is, that guy isn’t carrying the SBR version.

      Ammo for those is hard to come by.

      My guess is he got it from NATO, but I don’t know that there’s any good reason not to have the SBR version–and I bet he has trouble getting the ammo and I’m sure it’s expensive.

      Civilians can buy them as the PS90. It’s the civilian version of the gun.

      https://www.fnamerica.com/products/ carbines/fn-ps90-series/ps90-standard/

      He could have gotten it anywhere.

      1. At the bottom of the Wiki page, they say Saudi Arabia bought 55,000 of them.

        He may have gotten it from them.

      2. P90 and FN2000 are different guns, fwiw.

        your guess is as good as mine; unless you look at them in clear side-profile, all bullpups look very much the same. the only thing maybe undermining your own guess is that the guy’s got a VG on the fore-end, and the FN2000 is designed with a bulbous integral fore-end that precludes that. also, looks like the charging handle is on top underneath the rail, not on the side. my guess is confounded by the full-length top-rail – and all the VHS2 things shown tend to have the FAMAS style carry handle on top.

        another pic maybe helps a teeny bit, where you can see the gap between the rail and the rifle, and the top-charger. The FN guns are flush on top, not needing that gap

    3. My guess: FN F2000. They look futuristic, which makes them cool.

    4. Check out that dude’s tennis shoes.

      Also, did the 6B that went missing when C was SOS ever turn up? Is she using it to still stir shit in the ME?

      1. Check out that dude’s tennis shoes.

        yeah, we talked about that. nobody has matching boots. They all have these very carefully distinguished special-unit-uniforms, but they all show up to fight in their nikes.

        There was an article i saw a while back that said that members of units had to pay for their uniforms. they’re a status thing i presume. Or maybe that was only in training = you don’t get to wear the unit-kit until you’ve been badged.

        Always a good read in case you’re bored = “Why Arab Armies Lose Wars“. It mentions a lot of reasons why they probably have 100 different ‘special’ units. Tribes, basically.

        1. *also interesting = Iraq’s Astronaut Army

          30% of troops never show up for duty, simply deed their salary to their commanding officer, who declare them ‘on permanent leave’.

          I think the “Why Arab Armies Lose” piece (written 15 years earlier) mentions that sort of thing as being common

    5. Might be a SCAR

    6. Funny angle doesn’t help, but that could pass for a SCAR…very much US (socom) kit

    7. How do we know he is Iraqi ?

      He is wearing tennis shoes so no boots on the ground.

      Therefore he might be American.

    8. I think GILMORE called it. Look at the barrel nut and the blockiness of the buttstock with the sling attachment there. Doesn’t look like a SCAR or FN2000. One of the VHS variants looks like it could fit.

  40. Wisconsin releases statement on fan wearing racist costume to game

    The University of Wisconsin-Madison released a statement after a photo of a fan wearing a racist costume at a football game went viral on Saturday. The fan appeared to be trying to make a political statement by holding a sign and wearing a President Obama mask with a noose attached.

    The photo.

    The Twitter bio for the person who took the above photo linked in the story:

    White men think I’m radical. intersectional feminist. ally. #blacklivesmatter. #ImWithHer. #Chicago.

    It’s stupid to allow someone dressed like that into a football game, but they best be apoligizin.

    1. If he’d just been wearing the Hillary mask, (instead of doubling w/ the Obama mask on the back of his head) would they still have called it “Racist”?

      I have now purged myself of potentially-given-fucks, and am all out

    2. This is racist because… The noose, I guess? Or the mask, which could be misconstrued as blackface? Are we supposed to wear white Obama masks?

      He’s in old-timey prison stripes. Hanging was, at one time, a popular and race-neutral execution method.

      Progs are weird.

    3. In Madison? Probably a plant.

  41. There is an article on the tubs today about the left being so butt hurt anout Comey interfering with the election in an UNPRECEDENTED last minute announcement.

    Hillary is furious about such obvious partisanship from a Republican appointee.

    BUT as is so often the case and even more timely interference play was once made the very weekend before the election that she and her hubby cheered on in the press as being important info that the voters should know.

    As it so happens the weekend before the Bush/Clinton election actual charges were made against Bush by aDemocrat concerning Iran Contra.

    It turns out that these charges against Bush were so obviously partisan interference because they were dropped a few daus after the election because the statute of limitations had long expired

    Stay tuned folks, for tomorrows episode of AS THE WORLD TURNS.

    I can’t post a link from my phone. Google this . It’s too juicy to ignore.

    1. Corrections from faulty memory.

      The charges were against Casper Weinberger not Bush.

      The article I read was The Washington Examiner

      1. What part of “NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA!” did you fail to comprehend!?!?

        Comey is probably being paid by the Russians too….

    2. Comey was (most recently, and to the position he currently holds) appointed by Obama.

  42. Same thing happened 4 years ago? Security cameras are pretty cheap.


    1. “It is ILLEGAL!”

      I think the whole ‘contempt for rule of law’ thing does tend to start with someone saying, “yeah but you did it first”

    2. False flag operation?

      1. I’m going to make a judgement-call that “Dumping a few hundred pounds of animal shit” on your own front doorstep is not the typical form of false-flag operation.

        I’m no Colombo, but it just seems inconsistent with human psychology.

  43. With Washington and Cincinnati playing in London, I have to wonder – do the Brits find the term “Redskins” offensive? Do they find the term “Bengals” just as racially insensitive a term for Indians? Do Bengalis boycott Cincinnati’s NFL team over the name?

    1. “Do they find the term “Bengals” just as racially insensitive a term for Indians?”

      Why would they, it references Tigers. There’s no context where it doesn’t reference Tigers. What a stupid fucking question.

        1. Not in the NFL.


          1. Oh?

            Perhaps when they finally win a Super Bowl, they’ll earn the “tigers” part.

            1. “Oh?”


              Glad I could educate you.

              1. Let’s walk this back a bit, so we can identify just where you were triggered into responding like a pissy, bitter old queen.

                1.) You responded to Jerryskids sarcastic comment in the hyper-literal manner that only someone on the autism spectrum would.

                2.) I poked a little fun at your strident reply to Jerryskids by pointing out that “Bengal” refers to cats as well as tigers, which in turn reinforced your point that it never refers to people.

                3.) Somehow you think that observing that bengal cats are a thing is a comment in support of your misinterpretation of Jerryskids humorous statement. No shit, there’s no team “Cincinnati Bengal Cats.” Only a fucking Aspie retard could read that and interpret it as a claim that people call Cincinnati the “Cats.”

                4.) Wanting to avoid getting into conflict with the equivalent of a screaming, mentally-ill hobo, I turned your misinterpretation into a humorous reference about how Cincinnati hasn’t won a Super Bowl yet, so they are no “tigers.” This was in hopes that you, obviously a football fan, would find it a funny observation and lighten the fuck up.

                5.) You go on to misinterpret a clearly intended sarcastic “Oh, [is that so?]” as a literal expression of surprise.

                Get help.

                1. Yeah, the Bengals have always referred to tigers.

                  Tigers have always been cats.

                  Taking things too literally at the wrong time always makes an ass of you and me.

                  How often do you see icing the kicker work like that?


                  1. I sincerely agree, Ken. Though I would like to point out that you misspelled “Let’s Go Pats!”

                    Jus’ sayin’

              2. Your neurological impairment in processing pragmatics is no reflection on the quality or appropriateness of my commentary. Now, do us all a favor and go be “trucculent [sic]” somewhere else.

                1. Is that Tulpa?

                  ’cause Tulpa’s always been full Asperger symptoms like that.

                  That’s one of his primary features.

                  Taking things literally that weren’t meant literally, and then calling people out for “lying” when they were just weren’t being literal.

                  That’s on the autism spectrum somewhere.

                  In all seriousness, watching a linguist duke it out with an Asperger victim should be epic.

                  P.S. Redskins ball!

                2. “Let’s walk this back a bit”

                  Let’s not. You were wrong and you want to bitch about me correcting you. I’ll pass.

                  “, so we can identify just where you were triggered into responding like a pissy, bitter old queen.”

                  Oh, you don’t like how I talked to you, so you post a gigantic wall of text which in no way changes anything, specifically that you were wrong, but proves irrefutably that you’re upset about it.

                  Cry about it more queen pissy.

                  1. “I’m HM, I come on to a libertarian website and presume to bitch about how people interact with me while insisting they behave to my standards, instead of just shutting up and fucking off like I should, but they’re “pissy queens””

                    Lololololololololol fucking stop with that shit.

                  2. were you posting under “Poopiest of diapers” the other day?

                    1. Now here is another lesson for the asshole who call himself “Heroic” then constantly white knights everything.

                      Gilmore interacted with me. Gilmore is an idiot.

                      So I’m ignoring him.

                      Take a lesson.

    2. “With Washington and Cincinnati playing in London, I have to wonder – do the Brits find the term “Redskins” offensive?”

      I was surprised that the Redskins playing Buffalo in Toronto didn’t raise more objections.

      I’ve recently talked to Brits that were coming to the U.S. on vacation. They asked for suggestions for when they were going through Wyoming, South Dakota, and elsewhere. I suggested they might want to go to a rodeo or a powwow.

      When I explained to them what a powwow was, they were surprised to hear that Native Americans still existed. They thought they were all dead.

      They were also surprised to hear that we would just let bears run around in the wilderness where they might mingle with people and hurt somebody.

      1. P.S. HTTR

        1. Su’a cravens has been doing pretty well for his first year

  44. I find this odd =

    Justice Department, Abedin lawyers in talks to permit email search

    CNN)The Justice Department and the FBI are in discussions with lawyers for Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin to secure approval that would allow the FBI to conduct a full search of her newly discovered emails, sources familiar with the discussions told CNN.

    Authorities have not yet sought a search warrant for the emails, law enforcement sources told CNN. Government lawyers hope to secure a search warrant to permit investigators to review thousands of emails on a computer Abedin shared with her estranged husband

    The new search warrant is needed because the existing authorization, covered by a subpoena, related only to the ongoing investigation of Weiner…

    “permit”? “allow”?

    It seems like the NY FBI field office wants permission for what the DC field office is supposed to have done, but didn’t?

    the investigators saw enough of the emails to determine that they appeared pertinent to the previously completed investigation

    Yeah, but didn’t an FBI source say yesterday that, technically, the investigation was never closed?

    1. Yeah this is extremely frustrating. Just when it seems like the FBI might start believing in Rule of Law, the Top Men get special treatment again.

      The FBI would never talk to my lawyers about searching my emails. They’d just show up with a warrant and fucking do it.

      1. Yes, but in this case its more than that – the (DC) FBI already subpoenad all these devices, and has spent a year combining through every single repository of Clinton-email.

        Now they seem to be pretending that they need new permission to search stuff …because Abedin forgot to hand them over (or lied)? It makes no sense. You don’t need new warrants for withheld evidence.

        It seems that CNN conflates some things there between who needs the permission – the DC FBI, or the NY FBI
        *(as well as asserts the investigation was closed – see bottom link above);

        It seems to me that the DoJ is trying to jump in and assert that what was technically ‘not over’ was over, and that everyone needs to start from scratch.

        1. Lynch et al. would try to argue that.

      2. Are you the former Paul-dot?

    2. Since when does it take any length of time to get a search warrant? They get search warrants approved while you are sitting on the side of the road. But somehow the FBI can’t get a warrant in a couple of days? So much so that they are undertaking a negotiation with the potential subject of the investigation?

      It makes one wonder if they are about to do what they did in the initial investigation….negotiate away all of their leverage so that they will be able to claim to be powerless to do anything. What is there to negotiate? If they offer up any immunity deals for Humma, what is the point of investigating further?

      Alternately, maybe the FBI requires a DOJ lawyer to go and get the warrant, and they don’t feel so terribly motivated to do this? Clinton surrogates are attacking several lines, one of which is that they want everything made public immediately and the FBI needs to assign a bunch of agents to go through this quickly so they can resolve it over the weekend. Any delay proves that this is a politically motivated “October surprise”. So by dragging their feet on a search warrant, DOJ could aid Clinton’s surrogates and give Humma/Clinton time to figure out a strategy for dealing with whatever is in the email.

    3. This is interesting.


      It is WND so take it as you will. I suppose these days it’s as credible as any MSM outlet. At second glance I see it credits Daily Mail.

      (DAILYMAIL) ? James Comey’s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.
      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/res…..WGseqZ1.99

      1. I’ve heard a lot of different speculations on why Comey did what he did. Pressure from Wikileaks, they found something very daming on Clinton or someone in her inner circle, Comey is a shill for Trumputin…

        I have my own theory. Someone, probably either Clinton or lynch has double crossed Comey in some way or other to the extent that he’s now planning on doing a real investigation and will recommend Clinton be indicted. Maybe Clinton promised Comey some high level cabinet position and then backed out on him. Don’t make deals with the devil if you don’t want to get burned.

        As potus, can Clinton pardon herself?

        1. I think his underlings mutinied. Think about it, would you want every FBI agent to become your sworn enemy and know Hillary was your only protection?

          1. That’s another one I’ve heard a few times.

            The Clintons must have a very long list of people they have a lot of stuff on. No one else behaves like this hillbilly white trash couple and gets away with it.

          1. But a president cannot pardon him/her self from impeachment.

            I would posit that any president granting himself a pardon would be immediately impeached, even if there was no underlying crime at all.

            E.G. if Obama were to issue himself a blanket pardon tomorrow, he’d likely be impeached before his term runs out. Even though he isn’t accused of any crimes.

            1. The first female president cannot be impeached.

            2. Impeachment by itself doesn’t have any effect whatsoever. As long as the prez has 34 senators, Congress can’t do shit to them.

      2. after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI

        This just seems to be the only plausible (entirely speculative) rationale for why he would do something so clearly likely to get him into super-hot-water.

        He had to be looking at 2 choices – “Bad” and “worse”, and chose the bad option – which was to notify congress and get the news out there in some way that it could be controlled from the top-down from that point.

        What was the “worse” outcome? It seems to be that the NY FBI was going to tell the press that Huma/Weiner’s devices were lousy with Clinton evidence which the DC FBI had been ignoring/failing to pursue?

        If anyone other than comey pointed out this stuff existed, it would open FBI to charges of suppressing/burying evidence. At least that the read i’ve made of things. I just can’t think of any reason why he’d stick his dick in the fire like this unless the alternative was to guarantee looking even worse.

        1. “This just seems to be the only plausible (entirely speculative) rationale for why he would do something so clearly likely to get him into super-hot-water.”

          He must have something very serious on someone. I mean he went against the AG on it. Or maybe, like I said, he’s been double crossed and knows his days are numbered once Clinton gets to the Whitehouse.

          1. She’s not likely to keep on too many Obama people anyway. At least not in their current roles.

            Nobody ever does. They need to set the tone that they are in charge, not the prior administration and not the bureaucracy.

    4. You think they’re going to send in a SWAT team with flash-bang grenades?

  45. Jan Wenner: Aide from all the lies – Thinks UVA-Rape Story Was Just Fine

    a 10-person jury heard the taped deposition video of Jann Wenner, the co-founder and publisher of Rolling Stone. The magazine mogul echoed the sentiments of several others from Rolling Stone: while Jackie was not credible, the fundamentals of the story still hold water.

    While this argument has been key to Rolling Stone’s defense, Wenner took it on with near-defiance to some of Eramo’s counsel’s questioning, going as far as saying that 70 to 80 percent of Erdely’s article was still valid.

    When asked specifically about the retraction of the article, Wenner made a somewhat shocking departure from the statements of others at Rolling Stone.

    “We have never retracted the article and don’t intend to,” Wenner said.

    Asked about the Dec. 5, 2014, editor’s note appended to the top of the article, in which Rolling Stone said it had lost faith in Jackie’s story, Wenner stated “it was a full retraction of our support of all of Jackie’s stuff.”

    In the video, Eramo’s counsel then asked Wenner to read the note at the top of Rolling Stone’s April 2015 retraction, laughing as he realized it was “contradictory” to what he had just said.

    1. If the 70-80 percent of the story that was “just fine” was the meta argument that ‘universities poorly respond to rape claims’….

      …how do you argue that “a non-response to a non-rape” is somehow proof of that?

      They (UVA) still fell short of their responsibility to treat completely-contrived, implausible, baseless claims as serious problems meriting immediate and hysterical over-reaction?

      He’s basically saying Eramo et al are still to blame for their poor-handling of a non-event.

      1. He’s making the Dan Rather argument. “Just because it was a fake story, it doesn’t mean it isn’t all true.” It is a really difficult argument to make with a straight face. But that is where they are. They believe the narrative. They will not be moved from that belief.

        Just as Rather and his supporters kept digging in as evidence of fraud mounted, they continue to dig in on the “truthiness” of the rape culture story. They are basically proving the case against them – that they had an utter disregard for the truth and would not be moved from their course regardless of the evidence before them.

        1. I don’t think that is going to go over well with a jury. Rollling Stone is going to get hammered.

    2. I hope H&R are never subpoenaed over Robby’s articles.

    3. A 10-person jury, what gives?

    4. Jackie not credible, story still holds water? Most of the story is still ‘valid’, not necessarily true? Didn’t retract the story and won’t, lost faith in story retract support of Jackie’s stuff?

      Proggie bizarro land where inconsistent narratives divorced from truth are…shit I cant even follow that. The best I can get out of that is ‘yeah the whole thing is a giant crock of shit but we aren’t going to be held liable for it and we stick to our guns.’

      How can these people even dress themselves?

      1. This is the leftist narrative, never admit to wrong doing, no matter how obvious it is. Make lame excuses, deflect, obfuscate, spin, lie, blame Republicans. Wash, rinse, repeat…

        1. You left out the ‘old news’ part.

          1. That’s my favorite. Move from “this isn’t true” to “we’ve always known this, it is old news” over the course of a week. The first place I noticed it was a Stephanopolis strategy for dealing with the Clinton draft story in 1990.

  46. Another interesting tidbit if true.


    1. WND? What are you, some kind of bleever?

      1. Yes I am a Believer. I consider myself a New Testament Christian.

        But I don’t read WND because of it.

        I don’t actually read WND at all, I just followed a link and looked around while I was there.

        With the MSM so in the pocket of the Clintons and the DNC alternate sources seem to increase in value though.

        The MSM will smother anything that goes against The Narrative

        1. To be clear, that was sarcasm, non-MSM sources are always a useful counterweight to whatever the establishment is trying to peddle at a particular time.

  47. CNN on James O’Keefe: “discredited film maker”


    Hey CNN: why did Foval and Creamer get fired if they did nothing wrong?

    1. Will they call Dan Rather a discredited journalist? And what has he ever done that didn’t turn out to be true?

    2. How you know you are a democrat party operative: You focus on the messenger and the counter-spin, rather than the actual story being presented.

      An honest version of this analysis would be to look at the history of the “violence at Trump rallies” coverage, how it dovetails with the undercover videos and then mix in the history of selective editing (called doctoring by these guys). A fair question would be “under what possible scenario could this be doctored?” It doesn’t sound terribly hypothetical. He talks in term of “we did” not “we could”.

      If your first run of the story is the Clinton counter-spin, you are a hack. Nobody should be under any other illusions.

      1. Shreek needs to be a prime time journalist. But Booooossshhhhh!!!!

    3. Oh, it’s Anderson Cooper, he’s so totally serial!

      1. “Anderson Cooper” comes up 1,400 times on a search of the wikileaks dumps. The top one was Podesta and top Clinton aids coordinating an appearance on the Anderson Cooper show, so nothing surprising or nefarious there. But that’s a lot of email mentions to go through.

        1. Interestingly, the same search on “Rush Limbaugh” produces an internal server error.

          Changing it to “Limbaugh” and widening the search to all of wikileaks got some results.

          Interesting in this context: an email from a company called Stratfor that is a “Global Intelligence Company”.

          From: Meredith Friedman [mailto:mfriedman@stratfor.com]
          Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:26 AM
          To: ‘Exec’
          Subject: FW: ******Rush Limbaugh*******
          Importance: High
          I was on email with Rush for a half hour or more before his show sending
          him our analysis on South Ossetia and chatting with him. I gave him
          talking points and emailed him our latest piece at about 5 minutes before
          he went on air. I was so busy doing this I didn’t have time to let y’all

          Great – I’ve also given him his own account to use and he offered to pay
          for it:) Told him stratfor can afford to give him a free account!!!


    4. CNN along with all the other MSM networks have lots of discredited journalists on their payroll, like all of them.

    5. O’Keefe got banned from Twitter recently, but the ban was lifted after thousands complained. I presume he was banned for hate speech, which is any speech that progs don’t like.

      1. They just can’t tolerate your intolerance. /progderp

    6. The so-called “libertarians” here at Reason call him the same thing all the time.

      I think they’re mostly jealous because he has exposed more government than most of them will in their sorry-ass lives.

  48. Researchers use software to find out what makes a book a bestseller.

    It turns out that the formula for a bestseller is to write about how more choices can mprove our lives and our politics, or about the successes of the libertarian legal movement.

    Ha ha, sorry Reason staff, I was only kidding. Here’s what one of the researchers said:

    “I’ll tell you what those features are, but first I’ll give you my caveat [blah blah blah]…

    “What we found is that bestsellers tend to have three dominant topics…. [The first] topic we called human closeness. It’s different from sexual closeness, which is a topic that the machine told us is not a bestselling topic. Sex did not sell, despite “Fifty Shades of Grey”, which is an outlier. But this topic of human closeness is much more about sort of connected interpersonal relationships.

    “When we study character ? we found that bestselling characters are engaged in actions ? less passive, more active.

    “And what we what we’ve discovered in the style chapter is that bestselling authors have a style that’s a bit more colloquial, a bit more in the language of a common person….”

    The book which best met the formula was The Collected Poems of Agile Cyborg…just kidding, it was *The Circle* by Dave Eggers.

  49. Americans hate ties.

    I hate ties.

    Playing in London.

    Why are we playing in London?

    Tied up in London.


  50. Possibly related to the above confusing story about the “Permissions” needed to search Abedin’s devices

    (*which would not be needed if it were still investigtion into Clinton server /intel-mishandling stuff…)

    It may be part of a separate investigation into Clinton Foundation dirt?

    A former FBI assistant director told CNN Saturday night that the FBI has for months been conducting an “intensive” investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The former G-man, Tom Fuentes, also contradicted CNN’s reporting from earlier this year that said the FBI’s attempts to open a public corruption case into the Clinton Foundation were quashed by the DOJ. CNN reported back in August that three field offices wanted to launch an investigation, but DOJ officials had pushed back against opening a case because “the request seemed more political than substantive.” There were conflicting reports at the time, however, which said a joint FBI-U.S. Attorney probe was indeed underway.

    Maybe its just these competing investigations are running into bureaucratic stumbling-blocks – the ‘intel’ people have already said Clinton is all-clear, but the others haven’t finished their own snooping at all. The way the media spins the stuff tries to make it all sound like “1 thing” when its not.

    1. Fuentes said, “The FBI has an intensive investigation, ongoing, into the Clinton Foundation.” He added that “the reports that three divisions came in with a request to Washington to open cases, and that they were turned down by the Department of Justice — that’s not true.”

      “What was turned down was that they be the originating office,” Fuentes explained. “Headquarters at the FBI made the determination that the investigation would go forward as a comprehensive, unified case, and be coordinated. So that investigation is ongoing and Huma Abedin, and her role in the foundation and possible allegations concerning the activities of the secretary of state, the nature of the foundation and possible pay to play — that’s still being looked at.”

      They could have implications affecting three separate investigations on one computer.”

      that last line is sort of the nut of my point. There are competing groups within FBI with different mandates and each wants to control how the evidence is used. Or at least that’s how it seems. It starts to help explain why Comey had to do his letter to congress.

  51. I’m getting a banner ad for The New School:
    “Imagine a university where passion for words is stoked by demands for justice”

    I can imagine it and it’s terrifying.

  52. Prosecutors keep getting pummeled by overreach

    We see it in cases of cops being persecuted and subsequently acquitted and we see it here

    All the morons claiming this is ‘white privilege’ are idiots

    Did OJ have white priv?
    Randy Weaver’s wife (murdered by FBI sniper)
    David Koresh and co?

    Furthermore comparing a jury of peers to overzealous cops at a demonstration by (mostly) Native Americans is nonsensical

  53. The over-reach reminds me of the Trayvon/Zimmermann prosecutor fuck-up.

    They could have gotten Mr. White Hispanic if they’d gone for some flavor of manslaughter (instead of 2nd degree murder), given Zimm recklessly put himself in that situation with a gun etc. after police expressly said to wait for them.

    But 2nd degree murder? That isn’t what happened, so Zimmermann walked.

    1. The CALL RECEIVER told him to wait

      This has no force of law

      They are not commissioned officers
      They also rarely understand nuances of self defense or crime

      In my agency their policy is TOTAL CYA.its not based on anything but minimizing liability.they will tell people if asked NOT TO FOLLOW a suspected DUI vs give updated location infor as we respond. Why? Because if a crash happens they don’t want liability

      I’m sorry but what DISPATCHERS ‘ordered’ Zimmerman to do should have zero relevance in any charging decision or jury decision. DISPATCHERS don’t have the training or street experience to make that kind of ‘order’

  54. Sorry to change the subject, but as a shameless self promoter, I can’t resist.

    Lots of folks want to hang the Bundy brothers and their father for civil disobedience to oppressive government, one that routinely persecutes selected individuals, sanctioned by public apathy. The Bundy executioners believe “public lands” belong to them (somehow) and are morally good.

    That’s moral pretense. The feds control 51% of the West, some 640 million acres; that’s not “ownership, but political empire. For a reasoned defense of the moral basis of private property and the perverse history of western land socialism, visit facebook.com/Politically-Incorrect to which is attached -1689698784686759/ Take a look at “The War on Western Working People”, published months back on Lew Rockwell’s site.

  55. “Pace the hundreds of angry progressive in my social networking world in a bloody sad rage over the fact these folk didn’t spend more time in jail than they already have in the process of trial, the mere act of being on federal property after closing hours, that is, the mere fact of the occupation itself, is not what they were charged with.”

    Mere act of being on federal property after closing hours, eh?

    Of course not a peep was heard from the “progressive” crew about the trespassers on the private property belonging to the company building the Dakota access oil pipeline.

  56. The really remarkable thing about this is that the Obama administration really did use kid gloves on these guys. The occupation this year, the standoff a few years ago, the Obama admin was bending over backwards to minimize loss, not cause another Waco, and to do everything by the book. Hell, they let these guys wander freely for years after the standoff because they didn’t want the bad PR. And this year they let things go on for over a month before they finally took decisive action and even then they managed to keep fatalaties to one guy (who ran from cops, had very publicly said he would die before surrendering, nearly ran over a cop, and then tried to run on foot while maybe reaching for his gun).

    And then this happens? The lesson (right or wrong) will be that the kids gloves were a mistake, that there’s no justice in taking them in peacefully. Next time one of the Bundys decide to make a scene, I suspect that the feds (be they under Clinton or Trump) won’t be so nice.

  57. Update HD Quality Films Available ON:
    ? ? ? http://bit.ly/2eA9W4k ? ? ?
    For the latest movie, music, news, trailers, exclusive interviews & HD Quality Streaming Online visit our official website

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.