2020 Election
Quote: TigerWuSure thing, I'll let you know as soon as the 16+ ongoing investigations
And we all know where there's an
investigation, there's guilt. Mueller
taught us that. Snicker..
Quote: EvenBobAnd we all know where there's an
investigation, there's guilt. Mueller
taught us that. Snicker..
Are we talking about the same Mueller investigation that specifically did NOT exonerate Trump as having committed crimes?
Quote: TigerWuSure thing, I'll let you know as soon as the 16+ ongoing investigations directly or tangentially involving Trump are complete. Then we'll know for sure.
We'll know for sure he is in the clear and that Democrats love wasting all that taxpayer money on their little witch hunts.
Heck, I still want to know what all those on this board who said they know he cheated on his taxes know.
Everyone knows ALL Democrats are Socialists! Haha....
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/p2J1G8V4Onj1gix6h5zcdw--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5c951fa21f00002d007ef0fc.png.cf.jpg
Quote: TigerWuSure thing, I'll let you know as soon as the 16+ ongoing investigations directly or tangentially involving Trump are complete. Then we'll know for sure.
If Trump were a regular guy like Roger Stone he'd already be in jail multiple times for contemptuous statements, and lack of respect for every institution of justice. And he would have been forced to testify as well and already committed perjury. That's before we even get to the 16 indictments. I don't know if it's true, but I heard someone say Trump family faces more criminal liability than all previous Presidents combined. That's how low a bar he met.
Quote: rxwineIf Trump were a regular guy like Roger Stone he'd already be in jail multiple times for contemptuous statements, and lack of respect for every institution of justice. And he would have been forced to testify as well and already committed perjury. That's before we even get to the 16 indictments. I don't know if it's true, but I heard someone say Trump family faces more criminal liability than all previous Presidents combined. That's how low a bar he met.
Who knows. Trump has an amazing ability to hire people that f*** up for him and take the fall in his place. It's his superpower, and it works because he's so dumb you'd never think he was a criminal mastermind. "No, Trump can't be guilty... he can't even finish a thought without contradicting himself. This Roger Stone guy can actually speak in complete sentences... he MUST be the ringleader!"
I'm just waiting for Hillary to be locked up for all those crimes she committed and was convicted of.
She's been on trial, right? And found guilty?
Otherwise why would all those people be calling her a criminal and chanting "Lock Her Up?"
They wouldn't do that unless she was actually found guilty, right?
Quote: EvenBobAnd we all know where there's an
investigation, there's guilt. Mueller
taught us that. Snicker..
Mueller hasn't been allowed to teach us that or anything, yet. There hasn't been so much as a complete sentence from him. Time to stop staining him with the Barr brush.
Quote: beachbumbabsMueller hasn't been allowed to teach us that or anything, yet. There hasn't been so much as a complete sentence from him.
"Mueller report details to be issued in 'weeks"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-report/mueller-report-details-to-be-issued-in-weeks-not-months-justice-department-idUSKCN1R72HX
As far as Mueller going on CNN, special
prosecutors can't talk about details of
an investigation.
Quote: EvenBob"Mueller report details to be issued in 'weeks"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-report/mueller-report-details-to-be-issued-in-weeks-not-months-justice-department-idUSKCN1R72HX
As far as Mueller going on CNN, special
prosecutors can't talk about details of
an investigation.
I'm not expecting Mueller to speak about anything or give interviews. I'm saying, so far, we've only seen a few excerpted part-sentences from him as run through Barr's filter. And Barr told Trump where he stood before he saw a word of the report. He brought the politics back into what was supposed to be independent and unfiltered.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm not expecting Mueller to speak about anything or give interviews. I'm saying, so far, we've only seen a few excerpted part-sentences from him as run through Barr's filter. And Barr told Trump where he stood before he saw a word of the report. He brought the politics back into what was supposed to be independent and unfiltered.
Attorney General Barr has released information about the Mueller investigation very quickly. He didn't sugarcoat the conclusion that Mueller reached that the investigation did not exonerate the President and also did not conclude that the President committed the crime of Obstruction of Justice. I expect him to continue to do that as information from the report is properly vetted for release.
Like EVERYONE in Washington, DC, I am sure that Barr has a political position, but it seems like he is moving the process forward properly.
I still predict that enough of the report cannot be released (sources/methods, classified information, dealings with foreign governments to get information that would reveal channels not publicly known, information on subjects not charged, etc.) to the public for everyone who feels the President committed a crime in this case to end up feeling the same way at the end of the day.
Quote: ams288Quote: aceofspades
LOL I specifically added "most" cause I didn't want to personally insult you!
LOL I know - I was replying for dramatic effect
Quote: RonCAttorney General Barr has released information about the Mueller investigation very quickly. He didn't sugarcoat the conclusion that Mueller reached that the investigation did not exonerate the President and also did not conclude that the President committed the crime of Obstruction of Justice. I expect him to continue to do that as information from the report is properly vetted for release.
Like EVERYONE in Washington, DC, I am sure that Barr has a political position, but it seems like he is moving the process forward properly.
I still predict that enough of the report cannot be released (sources/methods, classified information, dealings with foreign governments to get information that would reveal channels not publicly known, information on subjects not charged, etc.) to the public for everyone who feels the President committed a crime in this case to end up feeling the same way at the end of the day.
Yes, I agree with most of this. I do think Barr overstepped his job by issuing a ruling, so IMO he interfered with the process in an unethical way.
I think that the report itself will show that obstruction IS an appropriate charge, and that the constraints on Mueller were the DOJ policy and pre-knowledge that his boss had already decided he would not bring that charge before he'd even seen the report. I think he meant for Congress to take it over, as they did in Watergate. And that may yet happen anyway.
It's really hard to deny what evidence they have, out of Trump's own mouth, about his intentions in trying to stop the Flynn and Cohen investigations. It wasn't just Comey who was asked to back off or act out of loyalty rather than by the law. There are about 1/2 dozen others who have indicated they were asked similar things, or that Trump said he was pushing to act.
Quote: beachbumbabsYes, I agree with most of this. I do think Barr overstepped his job by issuing a ruling, so IMO he interfered with the process in an unethical way.
He gave his conclusion based on the evidence presented. It may sound and look like "obstruction" but I think, had Mueller had enough charge that, it would have said so clearly in the report.
Mueller said, based on what we know now (and is incomplete, of course) in the report that there was not enough evidence, according to Barr.
Barr said based on the evidence presented, there was not enough to proceed based on evidence and precedent.
In spite of some on my side (since I have to be on a side to be called names here anyway), I don't see that as glowing indication of complete innocence anymore than I see Comey's "Hillary" statement as one in that case. One would have to be complete biased to say there is no evidence that either of the two candidates committed at least some elements of a crime. The issue is that it isn't a "crime" until all the required elements are present...and then someone has to be willing to prosecute it.
In other words, in spite of everything said so far, I am not saying that Congress will not look at it and perhaps decide something different.
We'll see how much can be released an whatever testimony comes up in the scads of investigations that will happen from here on out. I have never thought of Trump as squeaky clean but, based on actual evidence and not just "someone over here said..." I also don't yet see him as a criminal. I do see him as having made some huge mistakes.
I do feel that spending too much time on it, and coming away with nothing, may be the best thing Democrats can do to help re-elect President Trump.
Do you feel that some of the things that got the special counsel thing started were a little dirty? I sure do...I am looking forward to that investigation being one of the "scads" of them.
Quote: RonCHe gave his conclusion based on the evidence presented. It may sound and look like "obstruction" but I think, had Mueller had enough charge that, it would have said so clearly in the report.
Mueller said, based on what we know now (and is incomplete, of course) in the report that there was not enough evidence, according to Barr.
Barr said based on the evidence presented, there was not enough to proceed based on evidence and precedent.
In spite of some on my side (since I have to be on a side to be called names here anyway), I don't see that as glowing indication of complete innocence anymore than I see Comey's "Hillary" statement as one in that case. One would have to be complete biased to say there is no evidence that either of the two candidates committed at least some elements of a crime. The issue is that it isn't a "crime" until all the required elements are present...and then someone has to be willing to prosecute it.
In other words, in spite of everything said so far, I am not saying that Congress will not look at it and perhaps decide something different.
We'll see how much can be released an whatever testimony comes up in the scads of investigations that will happen from here on out. I have never thought of Trump as squeaky clean but, based on actual evidence and not just "someone over here said..." I also don't yet see him as a criminal. I do see him as having made some huge mistakes.
I do feel that spending too much time on it, and coming away with nothing, may be the best thing Democrats can do to help re-elect President Trump.
Do you feel that some of the things that got the special counsel thing started were a little dirty? I sure do...I am looking forward to that investigation being one of the "scads" of them.
Yeah, the Dems will have to tread even more lightly after Barr's interpretation, and it was already dicey enough that Nancy Pelosi was tamping down impeachment ideas for months before that.
My understanding of the events and timeline (undated).
1. Papadopolous (who pled guilty and stands by that) bragged to an Australian diplomat that Russia was providing opposition info to Trump's campaign. The diplomat reported that to authorities. The FBI opened an investigation as a result.
2. One of the Republican primary candidates hired that firm to do opposition research on Trump. They hired Steele to do the work.
3. That firm, once the Republican withdrew, marketed the report to the Democrats. They accepted.
4. Copies of that report got to McCain and others in the Senate. McCain asked Lindsay Graham what to do with it. Graham recommended he send it to the FBI. McCain did, on his recommendation. It then became part of the investigation.
5. At some point, but prior to the elections, the NSA, which monitors foreign calls and emails, informed the Obama Administration that there were ongoing contacts and conversations with people in the Trump campaign, and surveillance was stepped up somehow. The info gathered became part of the FBI investigation.
Those activities were the start of the investigation that started within the FBI, but after Comey firing, were assigned to the special counsel. (There's lots more, as we both know, over the transition and beginning of the term.)
So, dirty, yeah, hidden agendas, yeah, but also lots of smoke and some fire coming from the Trump campaign. Lots of dirt on everybody.
Here’s The Full Story of How Obama, Hillary and Brennan Carried Out The Crime of the Century
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/howley-heres-the-full-story-of-how-obama-hillary-and-brennan-carried-out-the-crime-of-the-century/
The complete Hillary-Ukraine connection: Official investigating leak of Manafort financial records to help her win in 2016
https://thenationalsentinel.com/2019/03/27/the-complete-hillary-ukraine-connection-official-investigating-leak-of-manafort-financial-records-to-help-her-win-in-2016/
Quote: FleaswatterA couple interesting articles to read:
Here’s The Full Story of How Obama, Hillary and Brennan Carried Out The Crime of the Century
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/howley-heres-the-full-story-of-how-obama-hillary-and-brennan-carried-out-the-crime-of-the-century/
The complete Hillary-Ukraine connection: Official investigating leak of Manafort financial records to help her win in 2016
https://thenationalsentinel.com/2019/03/27/the-complete-hillary-ukraine-connection-official-investigating-leak-of-manafort-financial-records-to-help-her-win-in-2016/
Oh, look, obscure, far-right propaganda websites. LOL I'm sure that's a bastion of truth and accuracy, right there.
Are we still trying to make the "Hillary is a criminal!" thing happen? I thought you guys had moved on to AOC being the new boogeyman?
Quote: RonCMueller said, based on what we know now (and is incomplete, of course) in the report that there was not enough evidence, according to Barr.
And remember, Mueller stacked the deck
by hiring only rabidly Lib prosecutors,
Trump haters all. 19 of them, not a single
one was on Trump's side. And with all
that power, all that bigotry and hatred
to find just the sliver of enough evidence,
they couldn't do it.
Imagine the hand wringing and whining
that went on after the first year. They knew
they had him, they were soooo convinced
they could nail him or his family on something.
With all the money at their disposal, unlimited
subpoena power (congress has very limited
subpoena power and funding) and all that
prosecutorial talent at their disposal, that
Mueller had, congress has a cows fart in a
tornado of doing what they could not. Making
a case against Donald Trump.
Quote: EvenBobAnd remember, Mueller stacked the deck
by hiring only rabidly Lib prosecutors,
Trump haters all.
BAHAHAHAHA!! BUULLLLLSHHHIIIZZZZLEE....
Quote:19 of them, not a single
one was on Trump's side.
GOOD! They shouldn't be on anyone's "side." They're supposed to look at the evidence and go from there.
Quote:And with all
that power, all that bigotry and hatred
to find just the sliver of enough evidence,
they couldn't do it.
Wow, almost like they did their jobs fairly and professionally, huh? I mean, if they hated Trump so much they could have easily framed him for something.
Quote: TigerWuOh, look, obscure, far-right propaganda websites. LOL I'm sure that's a bastion of truth and accuracy, right there.
Are we still trying to make the "Hillary is a criminal!" thing happen? I thought you guys had moved on to AOC being the new boogeyman?
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post and The New York Times sure got the facts correct the past two years.
So tell me about your accurate sources.
Lol lol lol
Quote: TigerWuI mean, if they hated Trump so much they could have easily framed him for something.
That was the intent! Why in hell do
you think Mueller hired NOTHING
but Lib prosecutors??? Because he
wanted it fair and balanced? He
didn't want a single dissenting
voice on his team. And even with
all that going for them, they
could find nothing to charge
Trump or his family with.
I've heard the term 'silent coup'
used twice in the news already
today, and you will hear it more
and more. Clapper, Brennen, Comey,
Strozk, Page, Obama, McCabe, and so many
more, conspired to overthrow a
duly elected president. The evidence
is overwhelming and it will come
out.
Quote: FleaswatterABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post and The New York Times sure got the facts correct the past two years.
So tell me about your accurate sources.
Lol lol lol
I said nothing about the accuracy any of those sources, but continue wasting your time trying to deflect and peddle nonsense conspiracy theories. Your desperation gives the rest of us something to laugh at.
Quote: EvenBobThat was the intent! Why in hell do
you think Mueller hired NOTHING
but Lib prosecutors??? Because he
wanted it fair and balanced? He
didn't want a single dissenting
voice on his team. And even with
all that going for them, they
could find nothing to charge
Trump or his family with.
So your "theory" is that 19 Trump-hating libs, with TWO YEARS, millions of dollars, and the power of the federal government behind, could not find a single reason to frame Trump for a crime, despite there being mountains of circumstantial material to work with? Jesus, this is lame, even by your standards, EB.
Quote:I've heard the term 'silent coup'
used twice in the news already
today, and you will hear it more
and more. Clapper, Brennen, Comey,
Strozk, Page, Obama, McCabe, and so many
more, conspired to overthrow a
duly elected president. The evidence
is overwhelming and it will come
out.
LOL... is this the same silent coup that killed Kennedy and faked the moon landing?
Now that Alex Jones is effectively off the air, where do you find all these conspiracy theories? Is this what they're peddling on Fox News nowadays?
Quote: TigerWu19 Trump-hating libs, with TWO YEARS, millions of dollars, and the power of the federal government behind, could not find a single reason to frame Trump for a crime,
They had the 'reason' going in, they just
couldn't find enough evidence to hang
a crime on him. Why do think it took
them 2 years to find nothing. They
were trying to find absolutely anything
that would stick to the wall.
Quote:where do you find all these conspiracy theories?
You're making a joke, right? You could
not be that seriously out of the loop on
current events.
Damn those racists in the Media.
No clue about the media Stacey, but I don’t dislike you because you’re black. It’s because your policies suck and you blame everyone for your issues.
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t like the creepy drunk driver from Texas either.
But then again, I’m not the racist, it appears the media is in your fantasy world.
Quote: EvenBobYou're making a joke, right? You could
not be that seriously out of the loop on
current events.
I don't think that he is joking. I just think that he closes his eyes and covers his ears whenever there is information which does not support his narrative.
I just hope that similar people have their "safe spaces" prepared for when the truth comes out and their world of lies come crashing down.
He also said back then that just like tokens of another race and of another gender, he was a token young guy.
send a thrill up my leg.
Americans Report Best Income Gains Since 1966
Quote: EvenBobIf I was running as a Dem, this would not
send a thrill up my leg.
If you were running for anything, I’d laugh.
Quote: FleaswatterI don't think that he is joking. I just think that he closes his eyes and covers his ears whenever there is information which does not support his narrative.
I just hope that similar people have their "safe spaces" prepared for when the truth comes out and their world of lies come crashing down.
Are you referring to conservatives ignoring the science of Climate change
Quote: terapinedAre you referring to conservatives ignoring the science of Climate change
There is no science in climate change. Climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Sheep think if they give up their freedom and money that will change.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is no science in climate change. Climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Sheep think if they give up their freedom and money that will change.
Don't be calling members on here sheep. It's quite derogatory.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3Quote: AZDuffmanThere is no science in climate change. Climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Sheep think if they give up their freedom and money that will change.
Greenland glacier is growing again after twenty year retreat.
To the sheep? lolQuote: beachbumbabsDon't be calling members on here sheep. It's quite derogatory.
Quote: beachbumbabsDon't be calling members on here sheep. It's quite derogatory.
Looks like someone is buying the climate change story hook, line, and sinker.😂😂
Quote: petroglyphhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3
Greenland glacier is growing again after twenty year retreat.
Spoilsport. It will be gone in 12 years,
according to Crazy Eyes. This has to be
fake news.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is no science in climate change. Climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
6000
Quote: BozDoes anyone else find it ironic that the leading Dem contender is an old White Guy accused of sexual harassment?
Please get your facts straight. The leading Democrat contender is a woman who has slept her way to public jobs.
I don't find it ironic. I think anyone in power or trying to be in power is a sitting target for any number of claims, some true, many false. I saw the interview with Flores. I think Biden is done.....
Quote: SOOPOOI saw the interview with Flores. I think Biden is done.....
Nothing new for Biden, he's been
a known sleaze bucket for decades.
If you're a woman and get within
a foot of him, he'll find a reason to
put his hands on you. He's the orig
'shoulder rub' guy, so harmless, sooo
creepy..
Quote: SOOPOOPlease get your facts straight. The leading Democrat contender is a woman who has slept her way to public jobs.
I don't find it ironic. I think anyone in power or trying to be in power is a sitting target for any number of claims, some true, many false. I saw the interview with Flores. I think Biden is done.....
Those claims are only part of his problems.
I think even a bigger issue has to do with Joe Biden and his son's dealings with China
Joe Biden took his son Hunter on official trip to China – ten days before communist regime's bank signed deal with private equity firm Biden jnr runs with John Kerry's son, book reveals
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5507429/Bidens-son-Hunter-deal-Bank-China-fathers-trip.html
Inside the shady private equity firm run by Kerry and Biden's kids
https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/
A Chinese Tycoon Sought Power and Influence. Washington Responded.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/business/cefc-biden-china-washington-ye-jianming.html
Quote: Fleaswatter
A Chinese Tycoon Sought Power and Influence. Washington Responded.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/business/cefc-biden-china-washington-ye-jianming.html
I had never heard of this till yesterday
when some guest on Fox mentioned
it. He said when it gets out you'll never
hear from Biden again.
Then there's this. Hundreds of pics
like this floating around of good ol
handsy Uncle Joe..
Quote: EvenBobNothing new for Biden, he's been
a known sleaze bucket for decades.
If you're a woman and get within
a foot of him, he'll find a reason to
put his hands on you. He's the orig
'shoulder rub' guy, so harmless, sooo
creepy..
The irony of the biggest Trump admirer on here saying ANYTHING about Biden touching women...supreme humor.
Warning: Quote below nsfw...or anywhere, really.
Quote:
Donald J. Trump: You know and ...
Unknown: She used to be great. She’s still very beautiful.
Trump: I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.
Unknown: Whoa.
Trump: I did try and f!/k her. She was married.
Unknown: That’s huge news.
Trump: No, no, Nancy. No, this was [unintelligible] — and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping.
She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture —
I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.
Billy Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as s#/t. In the purple.
Trump: Whoa! Whoa!
Bush: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!
[Crosstalk]
Trump: Look at you, you are a pussy.
[Crosstalk]
Trump: All right, you and I will walk out.
[Silence]
Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.
Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her, it’s —
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Bush: Uh, yeah, those legs, all I can see is the legs.
Trump: Oh, it looks good.
Bush: Come on shorty.
Trump: Ooh, nice legs, huh?
Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.
Trump: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford, Gerald Ford, remember?
Quote: beachbumbabsThe irony of the biggest Trump admirer on here saying ANYTHING about Biden touching women...supreme humor.
Warning: Quote below nsfw...or anywhere, really.Quote:
Donald J. Trump: You know and ...
Unknown: She used to be great. She’s still very beautiful.
Trump: I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.
Unknown: Whoa.
Trump: I did try and f!/k her. She was married.
Unknown: That’s huge news.
Trump: No, no, Nancy. No, this was [unintelligible] — and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping.
She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture —
I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.
Billy Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as s#/t. In the purple.
Trump: Whoa! Whoa!
Bush: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!
[Crosstalk]
Trump: Look at you, you are a pussy.
[Crosstalk]
Trump: All right, you and I will walk out.
[Silence]
Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.
Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her, it’s —
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Bush: Uh, yeah, those legs, all I can see is the legs.
Trump: Oh, it looks good.
Bush: Come on shorty.
Trump: Ooh, nice legs, huh?
Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.
Trump: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford, Gerald Ford, remember?
For the lulz:
guy who really likes touching little
girls. You got a problem with that?
These photos/videos are a bit concerning, but...we are in the MeToo era, and if Biden had done worse to his staff in private, we would know about it by now.
Clumsy displays of affection to those that may not feel as affectionate to him is the best spin.
My bottom line is there are more substantive reasons to vote against him than this.
JClay
As opposed to "morons," "rapists," "crooks" etc?Quote: beachbumbabsDon't be calling members on here sheep. It's quite derogatory.
Quote: SanchoPanzaAs opposed to "morons," "rapists," "crooks" etc?
Or criminal.
Quote: SanchoPanzaAs opposed to "morons," "rapists," "crooks" etc?
Who and when did someone call a forum member a crook, moron, or rapist, and not get called out on it?
