Trump lawyers try to halt book's release as White House fights to contain firestorm

a reply to: introvert

Yeah. I'm not really giving this news much of my concerns. Looks like a typical Trump news distraction to me. Trump gets triggered and has to blather for a week or so, hijacking the news cycle to talk about where ever his angry ADD has lead him that day. If it develops beyond the C&D letter then I may care a bit more.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: introvert

Yeah. I'm not really giving this news much of my concerns. Looks like a typical Trump news distraction to me. Trump gets triggered and has to blather for a week or so, hijacking the news cycle to talk about where ever his angry ADD has lead him that day. If it develops beyond the C&D letter then I may care a bit more.

Without this, what Jeff Sessions is doing right now would be front and center.

Something to think about.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: matafuchs

Dude Trump is actively trying to prevent this book going to sale and as such he is actively trying to suppress freedom of speech

Dress it up all you like.

This is wrong

Trump is seeking legal means to prevent the book from going to sale. A president could have many valid reasons for this, such as it including operational information that would jeopardize national security. Or flat out libel (the president still has rights, too).

So liable as already discussed on this thread is not reason to block the sale of the book

So unlesss this book is going to damage national security the yeah..... I don’t care how you want to dress it up but Trump is trying to suppress freedom of speech

It isn't supressing freedom of speech. If it were, then there would be standing for a civil rights lawsuit.

a reply to: underwerks

I don't know about front and center (pro-pot topics while popular still don't dominate headlines when they come out), but this idiocy is definitely deflecting from Sessions' shenanigans that is for damn sure.

a reply to: Liquesence

I hope it goes on sale. Cuz im buying it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Liquesence

I hope it goes on sale. Cuz im buying it.

Oh, it'll go on sale.

I want to read it, too. Not necessarily buy it, lol.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well post your facts then, sources please and do not post right wing blogs. You say you have public records, post them!

That all said, you're clearly derailing this thread.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Liquesence

I hope it goes on sale. Cuz im buying it.

I won't buy it, but I hope it goes on sale.

If we start banning books because they tell possible lies, then we're walking down a dangerous path.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well post your facts then, sources please and do not post right wing blogs. You say you have public records, post them!

That all said, you're clearly derailing this thread.

Oh, come on. It's been a decade since then. I don't have any of that research anymore.

And I don't do 'right wing blogs.'

Do your own research, I am sure it's all still a matter of public record.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Liquesence

I hope it goes on sale. Cuz im buying it.

Amazon set to sell it on January 9th. You can pre-order now for download or hard copy. (As of yesterday, I haven't looked today.)

a reply to: antiantonym

We're watching probably the biggest meltdown of a U.S. federal administration since Nixon. We should be discussing these details because it's history in the making. This is essential conspiracy content for now and all time.

Right, like they arrested Nixon neither.

Meh. Enjoy your Disneyland, Wizard of Oz, Platos Cave political house of Fantasy.

a reply to: angeldoll

It is #1 on the best seller list right now...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then all you got is your word which ain't anything on the internet. Fact is, the man you're defending is a convicted criminal and your whole defense rests on your memory of things which I'm sure you read on some right wing blog/thread.

Fun fact, public records don't expire so if you really read the actual records they're still available.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then all you got is your word which ain't anything on the internet. Fact is, the man you're defending is a convicted criminal and your whole defense rests on your memory of things which I'm sure you read on some right wing blog/thread.

Fun fact, public records don't expire so if you really read the actual records they're still available.

Then go get them. I already did, ten years ago.

And who the heII cares if he had a criminal record? That does not make it okay that he was arrested on a bogus warrant issued from Beau Biden's Delaware AG office on charges that were made up and later dropped completely -- AT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE OUTING OBAMA.

It doesn't.

I am not going to rewrite open record requests to provide directly sourced evidence. YOU can do that yourself.

No one has disputed what happened with Larry's arrest. NO ONE.

And Obama never even disputed Larry's claims.

So why are you? You have zero reason to doubt anything Larry claimed or anything that happened to him.

And we all know you deny reality for partisan purposes: Link

BTW it is shipping tomorrow...they moved up the release date...hmmmm.....

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, I don't have to get anything because I'm not the one who is pushing this agenda, you are! You get the facts to back up your claims because that's how it works. Did you try to find them on the internet? They might be there or maybe they never existed and you're full of it.

As far as I'm concerned, all your posts in this thread are completely invalid and all you can do attack anyone who questions your "authority". Claiming to do research over a decade ago isn't gonna cut it. What are you, some kind of historian? No, you are not.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Hahahahahhahahhahahahahaha

Hahahahahhahahahahahaa

Hahahahhahaha

I only lurk, i live in another country, have no horse in this race. But damn women? Are you effing serious? Are you seriously calling another person a troll ?

Hahahahaha


I needed that thanks

You reply to every single person in threads you dont agree with, using as few characthers as possible with no intent on anything but disrupt the conversation. If your not a shill your one th1ck lady.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, I don't get anything because I'm not the one who is pushing this agenda, you are! You get the facts to back up your claims because that's how it works. Did you try to find them on the internet? They might be there or maybe they never existed and you're full of it.

As far as I'm concerned, all your posts in this thread are completely invalid and all you can do attack anyone who questions your "authority". Claiming to do research over a decade ago isn't gonna cut it. What are you, some kind of historian? No, you are not.

Pfft.

You are alone in denying Larry was arrested on a warrant issued out of the Delaware AG office at his press conference outing Obama for their weekend of sex and coke in 1999.

Here's a DailyKos piece on it written by David Weigel: Link

So not a right wing blog...it's left.

I have no links from a decade ago. But certainly you have ZERO cause to dispute it.

And like I said before, even Obama NEVER denied ANY of Larry's claims. Never. Not once.

**

ETA: Oh, and you still lied about not having a seal on your birth certificate. So, I don't expect you to start recognizing facts and reality now.

***

ETA2: Here's a Slate article, too:
Link

Sinclair’s rap sheet is well-documented .He has been charged with everything from larceny to theft to forgery, and drewa 16-year prison sentence in Coloradoin 1987. He was released in 1999. Now it looks like he’ll be facing a newcharge: Larceny, this time in Delaware.

Again, the Slate leans very left.

a reply to: matafuchs

No, going to court would make the author present all of the recordings to prove them. In fact, it would be an easy way to discredit the entire book and all of the other accusations. Right?

Or prove the accusations are true.

Right?

Trump does not stand up unless he knows he is right. Like with Lewandowski and the 'violent attack'. everyone called on him but he stood by and was vindicated. Same with Manafort. He was canned because of what he was doing and Trump did not like it.

Sure. I don't concern myself with fanboy rantings.

a reply to: introvert

I will agree there. It could go either way.