Keith Olbermann Calls on Biden to Fire Garland or Quit

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  66 comments

By:   Kipp Jones (Mediaite)

Keith Olbermann Calls on Biden to Fire Garland or Quit
Keith Olbermann called on President Joe Biden to resign if he is unwilling to fire Attorney General Merrick Garland in a frenzied rant on Thursday.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Former news and sports anchor Keith Olbermann called on President Joe Biden to resign if he is unwilling to fire Attorney General Merrick Garland in a frenzied rant on Thursday.

The former ESPN and MSNBC host-turned balcony commentator posted a video message aimed at Biden on Twitter in which he called on Garland to be fired.

Olbermann also called on Biden to use a provision in the 14th Amendment to ban former President Donald Trump and other Republicans from ever holding office again.

Olbermann wrote, "Real leadership from @POTUS in his 1/6 anniversary speech at this hour would be to call on Congress to pass the bill invoking the Insurrection provisions of the 14th Amendment to ban Trump, Gosar, Brooks, Boebert, Cruz and the other traitors from ever again holding public office."


Real leadership from @POTUS in his 1/6 anniversary speech at this hour would be to call on Congress to pass the bill invoking the Insurrection provisions of the 14th Amendment to ban Trump, Gosar, Brooks, Boebert, Cruz and the other traitors from ever again holding public office. pic.twitter.com/xIt17Ony3D
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) January 6, 2022

In a screed about Jan. 6, Olbermann unleashed on Biden and the federal government over what he asserted is an unwillingness to hold Jan. 6 rioters and those who motivated them accountable.

Olbermann said:


Jan. 6, one year. And what have we done with that year? In essence, nothing. Subpoenas issued, ignored, mocked. Traitors, crooks, sadists, racists, gun fetish psychos, seditionist congressmen, plotters of coup d'etat, still strung out on stupidity, and impunity and ready to do it all over again. And they are not even the real problem. We are.
One year gone, and if the midterms only go as badly as midterms usually go, only one year left. And where is the special prosector making life a living hell for Bannon, and Miller, Gosar and Boebert, Jordan and McCarthy and Trump? Where is the attorney general giving us not a boilerplate speech but indictments? Where is the Homeland Security chief telling us, yes, Jan. 6 was terrorism, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers are terrorists organizations, and no, you're not crazy, if you and I stormed the Capitol, we would be met by rubber bullets and tear gas.?

Olebamann then asked, "Where is the president who will fire this wooden statue we call Merrick Garland?"

He then called on Biden, who he accused of "sleepwalking" through his presidency, to resign if he is unable to install a justice department head who will carry out justice in a way he finds suitable.

He continued,


Where is the president who knows that the bully understands only fear? Yours and his. And that the only way to stop the bully, to stop the Republicans, to stop the Trumps, to stop the next coup d'etat is to make them fear that they will lose everything they have. Because they have made it clear, America is going to be them, or us. And, goddamnit, Joe! It is your job to make sure it is us. And if you don't see it that way, resign. We need somebody in your chair who realizes that democracy could be dead a year from right now. We want that to be you. but if it isn't, the rest of us don't have any more time to wait, or to waste.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Another good article calling for Trump to face criminal prosecution. Now we are getting some momentum going. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

That's what you got out of that rant?

The man is certifiable.  He should replace Trump and join O'Rielly on tour for some actual entertainment.

Balcony commentator is a gross exaggeration/

Baked Tater is more likely

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @1.1    2 weeks ago

He's an overly dramatic prima donna, but he's also right. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Abrokenclockisrightonceaday.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

actually twice in a 24 hr period if its an old school clock not using military time .....

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

hahahaha

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Krishna  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

Evenablindsquirreloccasionallyfindsanacorn.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2    2 weeks ago

Why do you feel the need to spam this type of comment all across NT?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2    2 weeks ago
Time to move on.

But what could they talk about then?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
Another good article calling for Trump to face criminal prosecution.

But poor Garland needs a reason to prosecute. Investigations based on nothing is one thing. Indicting with nothing is another.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

Well look, Hillary testified under oath several times, one of them for 11 hours about Benghazi, emails and stuff.   The least Trump could do is state his case under oath about everything he did.

Why is Trump so special?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 weeks ago

If Trump faced an 11 hour interrogation he would lie 200 times. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 weeks ago

He could not last for one hour before making a total idiot of himself and conducting himself in such an angry manner that even 'Tucker' would shrink away.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

www.theguardian.com   /us-news/2022/jan/08/capitol-attack-committee-donald-trump-white-house-stop-biden-win

Capitol attack panel investigates Trump over potential criminal conspiracy

Hugo Lowell 8-10 minutes   1/8/2022


The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack is examining whether   Donald Trump   oversaw a criminal conspiracy on 6 January that connected the White House’s scheme to stop Joe Biden’s certification with the insurrection, say two senior sources familiar with the matter.

The committee’s new focus on the potential for a conspiracy marks an aggressive escalation in its inquiry as it confronts evidence that suggests the former president potentially engaged in criminal conduct egregious enough to warrant a referral to the justice department.

House investigators are interested in whether Trump oversaw a criminal conspiracy after communications turned over by Trump’s former chief of staff   Mark Meadows   and others suggested the White House coordinated efforts to stop Biden’s certification, the sources said.

The select committee has   several thousand messages , among which include some that suggest the Trump White House briefed a number of House Republicans on its plan for then-vice president Mike Pence to abuse his ceremonial role and not certify Biden’s win, the sources said.

The fact that the select committee has messages suggesting the Trump White House directed Republican members of Congress to execute a scheme to stop Biden’s certification is significant as it could give rise to the panel considering referrals for potential crimes, the sources said.

Members and counsel on the select committee are examining in the first instance whether in seeking to stop the certification, Trump and his aides violated the federal law that prohibits obstruction of a congressional proceeding – the joint session on 6 January – the sources said.

The select committee believes, the sources said, that Trump may be culpable for an obstruction charge given he failed for hours to intervene to stop the violence at the Capitol perpetrated by his supporters in his name.

But the select committee is also looking at whether Trump oversaw an unlawful conspiracy that involved coordination between the “political elements” of the White House plan communicated to Republican lawmakers and extremist groups that stormed the Capitol, the sources said.

4928.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=a82e615a33f2572e375eec120eeedaca
Trump supporters clash with security forces as they storm the US Capitol in Washington DC on 6 January 2021.   Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images

That would probably be the most serious charge for which the select committee might consider a referral, as it considers a range of other criminal conduct that has emerged in recent weeks from obstruction to potential wire fraud by the GOP.

The vice-chair of the select committee, the Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney, referenced the obstruction charge when she read from the criminal code before members voted unanimously last November to recommend Meadows in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify.

The Guardian   previously reported   that Trump personally directed lawyers and political operatives working from the Willard hotel in Washington DC to find ways to stop Biden’s certification from happening at all on 6 January just hours before the Capitol attack.

But House investigators are yet to find evidence tying Trump personally to the Capitol attack, the sources said, and may ultimately only recommend referrals for the straight obstruction charge, which has already been brought against around 275 rioters, rather than for conspiracy.

The justice department could yet charge Trump and aides separate to the select committee investigation, but one of sources said the panel – as of mid-December – had no idea whether the agency is actively examining potential criminality by the former president.

A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment on details about the investigation. A spokesperson for the justice department declined to comment whether the agency had opened a criminal inquiry for Trump or his closest allies over 6 January.

Still, the select committee appears to be moving towards making at least some referrals – or alternatively recommendations in its final report – that an aggressive prosecutor at the justice department could use to pursue a criminal inquiry, the sources said.

The select committee is examining the evidence principally to identify legislative reforms to prevent a repeat of Trump’s plan to subvert the election, but members say if they find Trump violated federal law, they have an obligation to refer that to the justice department.

Sending a criminal referral to the justice department – essentially a recommendation for prosecution – carries no formal legal weight since Congress lacks the authority to force it to open a case, and House investigators have no authority to charge witnesses with a crime.

But a credible criminal referral from the select committee could have a substantial political effect given the importance of the 6 January inquiry, and place pressure on the attorney general, Merrick Garland, to initiate an investigation, or explain why he might not do so.

​​Internal   discussions about criminal referrals intensified   after communications turned over by Meadows revealed alarming lines of communication between the Trump White House and Republican lawmakers over 6 January, the sources said.

In one exchange released by the select committee, one Republican lawmaker texted Meadows an apology for not pulling off what might have amounted to a coup, saying 6 January was a “terrible day” not because of the attack, but because they were unable to stop Biden’s certification.

The select committee believes messages such as that text – as well as remarks from a Republican on the House floor as the Capitol came under attack – might represent one part of a conspiracy by the White House to obstruct the joint session, the sources said.

In referencing objections to six states, the text also appears to comport with a memo authored by the Trump lawyer John Eastman that suggested lodging objections to six states – raising the specter the White House distributed the plan more widely than previously known.

Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, added on ABC last week that the investigation had found evidence to suggest the events of 6 January “appeared to be a coordinated effort on the part of a number of people to undermine the election”.

Counsel for the select committee indicated in their   contempt of Congress report   for Meadows that they intended to ask Trump’s former chief of staff about those communications he turned over voluntarily, before he broke off a cooperation deal and refused to testify.

Thompson has also suggested to reporters that he believes Meadows stopped cooperating with the inquiry in part because of pressure from Trump, but the select committee has not opened a separate witness intimidation investigation into the former president, one of the sources said.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

Sensible people stopped listening to Keith Olbermann sometime in the 90s. He is one of the more toxic and thoughtless commentators out there.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 weeks ago

No, he's exactly right. It is time for all patriotic Americans to call for Trump to be criminally prosecuted for all of what he did from Nov 3 -Jan 6  2020-2021.  We as a nation have pussy footed on this issue far far far too long. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 weeks ago

No John, no.

If we are going to go the way of the banana republics and most Soviet Satellites where arresting former Presidents

is common place

then it must be done as slowly and with as much legal expertise as possible.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

 1 year without any movement isnt long enough for you?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

where were you from June of 1972 through August of 74 while we watched Watergate unwind?

Chill, have patience.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
then it must be done as slowly and with as much legal expertise as possible.

Yes he (Garland) is the Marshal Dillon standing on the porch of the marshall's office with the shotgun keeping the raging crowd from lynching a man without the benefit of due process...

The rest of you calling for hanging now are calling for nothing but an illegal lynching.... Hillary Clinton's position when she was a part of the Watergate investigation team... She was fired for that position and her activities advocating falsifying evidence to effectuate the lynching....

Garland would love to hang him as much as some here are advocating, but he is smart enough to know that he has to have bulletproof evidence to ensure it isn't a political lynching, which would do tons and tons of damage to the government and this nation... (possibly leading to a civil war)

Why did Ford pardon Nixon? the real reason not the democrat expedient claims? Why did the leaders of Congress (both parties) agree and recommend the pardon as the best course of action?, Why did the Supreme Court agree, unanimously agree, that a pardon would be the best outcome?

Two reasons...

#1 If you convict a president based upon his actions in office, then you risk the presidency and it's authority to respond to just about everything... Essentially hamstringing the office of president...

#2 If you can do it to a sitting president for actions while in office, it can be done to anyone holding high office in the government at anytime.... You want to deal with that kind of gridlock...

You may be right, you may be wrong, but there is one thing that has to be... Beyond any shadow of doubt with rock solid evidence... Without it, just like Nixon and obstruction of justice, you don't go near it ever...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
4.1.5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
then it must be done as slowly and with as much legal expertise as possible.

I know you are right about the legal expertise part, but I still can't help but think it is time for this fool to answer for all the shit he has done, both in his business shenanigans and his political behavior.  He's been getting away with his nonsense since the night he stole his father's fortune out from under him.  It's also time for his children and other 'associates' to answer for their criminal involvement, as well.

Maybe Garland is utilizing a 'work his way to the top' strategy.  Who knows?  But the wait is almost as painful as the entire last five years have been.

Personally speaking, I can't wait to see Trump's first prison ID photo.  You know...the one every new inmate has taken...right after their head is shaved?  The humiliation he will suffer just might save taxpayers the burden of a lengthy incarceration.    

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.6  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
Personally speaking, I can't wait to see Trump's first prison ID photo.

Doubtful you will ever see one sis... nature of the political beast...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
4.1.7  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
The rest of you calling for hanging now are calling for nothing but an illegal lynching.... Hillary Clinton's position when she was a part of the Watergate investigation team... She was fired for that position and her activities advocating falsifying evidence to effectuate the lynching....

Hillary Clinton is no longer as relevant as you seem to think she is, but for future reference, you might want to fact check yourself before posting incorrect information about her.  Case in point:

A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted and implied that Zeifman was Hillary’s supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for “unethical, dishonest” conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was  not  her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn’t have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as “unethical” and “dishonest” is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the “facts” on which he based that characterization were ones that he contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.  Source

The Snopes article is actually pretty good.  You should read it.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

Donald hates losing almost as much as he hates losing money.

Let NYC and NY State wear him down.  let there be civil trials

Let the states ask for reimbursement for the $519 million wasted on audits to prove he lost.

Maybe it will bankrupt the RNC

Precedent is that these people get pardoned and disappear from public.

Problem is that Donald will never disappear willingly,

isn't he starting yet another website in February?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

thanks, that stuck out to me as well as being off topic, not accurate.

but people who believe in the Loch Ness monster are all true believers...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.10  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.7    2 weeks ago
The Snopes article is actually pretty good.  You should read it.

If it's the same one I'm thinking of, (Mikkelson of 2014) I have already have and yes it's pretty good, IF you believe snopes to be impartial, which, unfortunately, I don't...

What was claimed to be unethical was unethical, by the person ordering it, that's the basis they sunk Nixon, (after convicting all the "I was just following orders" creeps) and he convicted himself of obstructing justice... (I'm not one of those that believe what was on those tapes was simple rehearsing of testimony, it was definitely trying to obscure the meanings of prior testimony, ie Obstruction of Justice)... The attempt was proof of intent to commit a crime.... Nixon was guilty....

My point is Hillary readily admits to following the clear instructions of her two superiors in an illegal and unconstitutional attempt to deny Nixon legal counsel during the investigation...  and the legal principle is simple, the guys that followed such illegal orders are just as guilty as the ones that gave them, especially when they know what they are doing and Hillary knew what she was doing, she wrote the brief that was used in the attempt... 

Ziefman although technically the one who released her from her job, never fired her, that part is correct... She was released and not offered further work in or with congress... If one wants to characterize that as a "Firing" that's on them... Snopes is trying to respond to other media investigating this, both the claim and actual happenings... Do they completely dispell it? no they don't...

Problem with it is this, who has the political power, the Democrats were in complete control of Congress at the time, unassailable majorities, any inequities in the democrat record aren't as serious as those in the republican record.... and as far as Nixon goes the democrats were the winners of that battle, so any questionable actions on the part of the democrats gets a very short shrift in the history...

And that is what happened with the Democrat inequities in the Watergate investigation...  By the time Hillary became Secretary of State, most of the facts and records are buried... Just a function of time...

What Ziefman said was accurate, but he tried to couch it as he was a decider, and a primary actor, giving his claim of being an insider a boost as well as his credibility... (for the media of course)

Which fails even a cursory examination of what documentation is left after so many years... 

But Snopes does it's thing, since his credibility is shot, what he says is garbage... ALL OF IT... 

Which is far from the reality.... Which is why I don't believe Snopes is impartial at all... Lots of facts mounted to support a preordained conclusion... Not get to the truth...

The truth is Hillary committed some very unethical acts, yes at the direction of her superiors, but knew what she was doing when she did it...

That truth is undeniable since she admitted to it herself...

There is other things that could be brought forth as well during that period, but as SP says it is off topic here...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.11  Nowhere Man  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.9    2 weeks ago
but people who believe in the Loch Ness monster are all true believers...

Thankfully, I'm not a true believer....

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.11    2 weeks ago

your commentary here and defensiveness for the last two weeks of participation

seems to indicate otherwise, soundly.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.13  Nowhere Man  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.12    2 weeks ago

Defensiveness, I guess that is your opinion correct? or is that any one with a differing viewpoint?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.13    2 weeks ago
is that any one with a differing viewpoint?

ironic coming from you.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.15  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.12    2 weeks ago
defensiveness for the last two weeks of participation

...out of the last 3.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
4.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 weeks ago

Perhaps the messenger leaves a lot to be desired, but the message is right on the money.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 weeks ago
Former news and sports anchorKeith Olbermanncalled on PresidentJoe Bidento resign if he is unwilling to fire Attorney GeneralMerrick Garlandin a frenzied rant on Thursday.

Typical progressive liberal, running around screaming gloom and doom. The man is an idiot.

Olbermann is a giant douche, and who gives a fuck what a douche has to say?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5  Paula Bartholomew    2 weeks ago

Replace Garland with Glen Kirschner and shit would get done in record time.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5    2 weeks ago

I agree. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    2 weeks ago

So you disagree with a Biden selection?

Oh my!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
So you disagree with a Biden selection? Oh my!

Something republicans never understand.  Democrats do not put their politicians on a pedestal, if they do wrong, they are called out on it, not by all, but by a majority.

Republicans twist themselves into knots trying to justify and excuse their fellow republicans, they feel that they can never be wrong. 

As an example, look at all the spinning to justify Trump's "convefe" comment.  An obvious mistype, but the Whitehouse refused to admit that, and what followed was Whitehouse spokesmen and republican Congressmen making all sorts of excuses to claim otherwise.

On the other side, you have Sotomeyer's comment about COVID and children.  She has been called out by other democrats as well as the so-called "liberal" media.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

Aw, look at that! 

Imagine my surprise that someone would claim to be righteous in calling out their own 

Hmmph

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.3    2 weeks ago
Imagine my surprise that someone would claim to be righteous in calling out their own

You're not being "righteous" (word of the day?), you're being non-hypocritical.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6  JBB    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6    2 weeks ago

Is Biden's pick incompetent?

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
6.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    2 weeks ago
Is Biden's pick incompetent?

Only at enforcing the law equally. He is doing a wonderful job of operating the Democrats two tier justice system where BLM, Antifa, and other leftist Brown Shirts get released w/o charges for doing things far worse than any Jan 6th rioter ever dreamed of.

The only reason Garland hasn't gone after Trump is that he doesn't have shit on him. Trump has top of the line high priced lawyers; they would make a fool of Garland the same way they are making fools of New York DA's, if he didn't have air tight evidence to back up any charges.

The left doesn't give a shit about law. They believe the government and judicial system should always cater to their whims. I would say midterms will teach them a well deserved lesson; but losing a massive amount of seats in Congress hasn't deterred either Establishment party before, why should it start now?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

Seems like lots of the progressives here really don't like Garland, but probably don't want to admit that Biden could have picked a whole lot better. 

Notice not a one will say if he is actually incompetent or not?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
7  MonsterMash    2 weeks ago

We can dismiss Olbermann as a man clearly in decline. And because of his long pattern of disturbing behavior, most have. But the sad state of Olbermann is not a singular matter. Instead, it should be a warning to the woke everywhere. Keith Olbermann is living proof of what years of lies, misery, hypocrisy, and baseless indignation do to a human. Living this way eventually takes a toll. It requires such effort to manufacture venomous hate over nothing. Plus, it never ends.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1  Ozzwald  replied to  MonsterMash @7    2 weeks ago
We can dismiss Olbermann as a man clearly in decline.

Why is it that when someone says something that right wingers don't like, it is always personal attacks?  They aren't happy with attacking what he says (which is fine) but they always resort to personal attacks as well.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1    2 weeks ago

Oooh, the sheer irony!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Anyone who peruses this site and reads the calls for Trump to be arrested understands how insane the idea is.  When pressed for, actual,  specific crimes he committed It's  just "orange man bad" hysterics and vague references to poorly understood legal concepts.  Trump's speech to the demonstrators on 1/6 is widely available. Anyone who thinks that is evidence of incitement either doesn't understand concept of incitement or doesn't care and just wants to get the mean orange man they don't like. 

A prosecution would be disastrous for this country. Disastrous. Even if the AG can forum shop a case and get it before  radicalized judge and jury of left wing illiterates (Washington DC jury pool), a conviction in such circumstances would never be accepted by half the country. It would widely be seen as illegitimate and politicized and cause immense damage to our nation. Our leaders used to be classically educated and understood both human nature and the examples of fallen republics before them.  But liberalism has been waging war on education for decades now, so that's out the window. For generations our leaders have understood that one of the downfalls of the Roman Republic was the criminalization of politics. Lose an election and your enemies brought you before courts they controlled. Caesar, most famously, marched on Rome to avoid the trials and punishment  punishment that would inevitable follow his loss of immunity as an office holder. When losing an election means jail or death, people are naturally alot  more open to illegal actions out of self preservation.

That's the road Democrats want to go down with the entirely foreseeable result that the Trump example will be used against the next Democrat president. It becomes a vicious cycle which end in tyranny by one side or the other.  Unless evidence of a crime is developed that an overwhelming majority of the people see a legitimate, a prosecution would be insanely risky for this country's future. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
8.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    2 weeks ago

You don’t get sued 4,000 times over 30 years without being a criminal.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1    2 weeks ago
You don’t get sued 4,000 times over 30 years without being a criminal.

Gee, with impeccable "logic" like that, perhaps you should take a stab at explaining why the "criminal" has never served any time nor been convicted of criminal offenses?

I mean, you don't get away with stuff forever!

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
8.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

Donald Trump - always the victim!  The guy just can’t catch a break.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1    2 weeks ago

White collar crime has never been a priority in America and the rich write the laws to make it hard to prosecute or punish financial crimes. Otherwise Trump would have been in jail long ago. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.2    2 weeks ago
Donald Trump - always the victim!  The guy just can’t catch a break.

How's about just posting all of the convictions Trump has had?

Can you do that much at least?

Maybe even 1 or 2?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
8.1.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.4    2 weeks ago

Do you defend Capone this much?  He and Trump have a lot in common, except Capone’s record of being convicted exceeds Trump’s by one, even though Trump clearly has him beat in overall charges.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.5    2 weeks ago
Do you defend Capone this much?

I am not defending anyone.

I am merely asking for proof from ANYONE that Trump is a criminal like so many have claimed.

Either you can provide it or you can't, and since it looks like you can not, then calling him a criminal is very stupid.

Get back to me when you get some proof.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
8.1.7  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.6    2 weeks ago

Lol.  Donald Trump has been sued thousands of times, and you are asking for the proof that he is a criminal … but you aren’t defending him.  Got it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.1.7    2 weeks ago
Lol.  Donald Trump has been sued thousands of times, and you are asking for the proof that he is a criminal … but you aren’t defending him.  Got it.

Got it? Haha.

I am sorry you don't know the difference between defending and asking for something.

I take special note you still have zero to back your claim up that he is a criminal.

Hmmmm.........making a declaration without proof...............some would say that is very illogical and demand proof for such a claim.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Quiet
9  Right Down the Center    2 weeks ago

The title of the article should be "Contrary to what everyone thinks, Keith Olbermann is still alive and trying to be relevant again".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @9    2 weeks ago

Olbermann has been quite the jackass for years now.

Must make him a left wing hero!

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
10  Freewill    2 weeks ago
Former news and sports anchor Keith Olbermann called on President Joe Biden to resign if he is unwilling to fire Attorney General Merrick Garland in a frenzied rant on Thursday.

Of course he did.  There is a reason why Olbermann always looks like he's constipated.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
10.1  Split Personality  replied to  Freewill @10    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Quiet
11  Right Down the Center    2 weeks ago

I call on youtube to ban Olbermann for distributing misinformation and being an all around jerk.  I guess neither one of us will get our way.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Right Down the Center @11    2 weeks ago

And Rochelle Walensky as well!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Quiet
11.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1    2 weeks ago
 I have to respect her credentials (MD from Johns Hopkins, Faculty of Harvard Med school and chief of the division of infectious diseases at Mass General).  She is waaaay out of her element as the head of the CDC.  Just like many brilliant doctors have bad bedside manners her communication skills and understanding the politics of her job suck and she has ended up being a detriment to getting the message across, whatever that message is.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.1.1    2 weeks ago

The lesson is: We shouldn't trust people simply based on their credentials.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Quiet
11.1.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.2    2 weeks ago

The lesson is: The Peter Principle is alive and well.

 
 

Who is online


CB
Gordy327


47 visitors