Hilarious...Judge presiding over DNC lawsuit against Russia/Trump campaign/Wikileaks is a Bill Clinton appointee.
0 2018-04-20 by AIsuicide
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Koeltl
Could they really not find a judge appointed by Bill Clinton to preside over this case? Seriously, do we have to worry about another "tarmac meeting" Slick Willy?
One of his first experiences in law was Watergate...I guess this explains the whole "Watergate" talking point regarding the suit.
Although the DNC admits they have no new evidence regarding the case they justify the suit by stating that no one has strung together the available facts properly.
So what does that say about Mueller's investigation?
So, what I'm really wondering about this whole lawsuit is this...are they telegraphing knowledge that Mueller isn't going to prosecute Trump?
Could this just be their way of keeping the Russian collusion narrative alive for another 2 years?
Another thing I'm wondering about...are the DNC servers going to come up missing or destroyed if they are asked to provide them as evidence?
One of my favorite quotes from a DNC official regarding the suit:
We are not going to just stand by and let Russia hack the DNC," said one official. "We are the victims."
Yeah....tell that to all the Bernie Sanders supporters.
Edit: watch out "top of controversial" here I come!!
42 comments
1 PRESHITENT_TRUMP 2018-04-20
Yep, appointing federal judges is kind of the president's job. I don't see anything wrong here.
1 armorkingII 2018-04-20
It's wrong when that appointee owes his career to the plaintiffs husband.
1 PRESHITENT_TRUMP 2018-04-20
Seems more like Clinton was lucky to have the opportunity to nominate such a qualified judge to me.
1 garyp714 2018-04-20
Nonsense. The judge in question had a distinguished career prior to being appointed to this post.
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
I'm sure there are other judges with distinguished careers that could preside over the case. It's not that difficult to avoid the optics of a conflict of interest.
1 PRESHITENT_TRUMP 2018-04-20
Not a conflict of interest so it's all good.
1 garyp714 2018-04-20
I'm not sure folks around here actually know what a real conflict of interest is...
1 PRESHITENT_TRUMP 2018-04-20
I guess his mother didn't tell him not to spend so much time on the_Donald.
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
What's this fucking shit suppose to mean? You just gonna shit talk?
1 PRESHITENT_TRUMP 2018-04-20
I guess your mother didn't tell you not to spend so much time on the_Donald.
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
Where do you get the idea that I spend time on TD? Or are you just gonna keep pulling fuck all out of your ass and smearing it all over the place?
1 asdf2100asd 2018-04-20
ROFL
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
I'm sure you don't.
1 PRESHITENT_TRUMP 2018-04-20
Pretty sure that's what I said.
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
pretty sure I don't fucking care
1 PRESHITENT_TRUMP 2018-04-20
Ok.
1 SweatyHamFat 2018-04-20
Dude calm down.
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
Read it in a Steve Buscemi voice...pretty sure I still don't fucking care.
1 pby1000 2018-04-20
Which means there is something in his closet. That is why he was appointed in the first place.
1 Shiny-And-New 2018-04-20
He appointed 380+ judges to various courts, do you really think he's got dirt on each and every one of them and that none of them would be qualified to serve here
1 mjrcraze 2018-04-20
Conspiracy.
1 YouDownWithFSB 2018-04-20
so what do you think when trump admin appointees investigate the same thing? all on the level right?
right?
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
ah...you again...why am I not surprised. Where have I submitted anything by Trump admin appointees as a source or reason for believing anything?
In other words..you are making a false assumption in order to what?
1 AnalgesicSonar 2018-04-20
Well the only options are a judge appointed by a Democrat or by a Republican.
1 YouDownWithFSB 2018-04-20
if the subject of this post is compromised because they were appointed by a democrat, surely a republican appointed judge or investigator would be completely trusted to investigate the presidents administration
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
We're they appointed by the president's spouse? Yeah...see, that's the important part you left out.
But I'm not surprised.
1 Lsdnyc 2018-04-20
would an Obama appointed judge be better? this is nonsense. People actually do believe in the rule of law, doing the right thing, following the rules.
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
oh....like the DNC followed the rules?
1 Lsdnyc 2018-04-20
a classic diversion technique. My point is that not all people are partisan. Most judges do their job, and use the LAW to make their decisions. This partisan rhetoric is destructive to our democracy.
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
That's great...now find one that wasn't appointed by the DNCs losing candidate's husband.
1 Lsdnyc 2018-04-20
federal judges are randomly assigned. you get what you get.
1 asailorssway 2018-04-20
Completely random... I'm sure.
1 Trez1999 2018-04-20
It's all for show anyway. This gave you 15 extra mins to derp about..
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
Hang around...I can derp about what a warhawk that cunt Nikki Haley is for 15 minutes.
1 Imma_trigger_you 2018-04-20
So which president is okay to be appointed by for you?
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
I would be fine with an Obama appointed judge. He's the least nefarious compared to Clinton and Bush.
1 Imma_trigger_you 2018-04-20
Ok.
1 OT-GOD-IS-DEMIURGE 2018-04-20
Judge Wood who is involved in the Cohen raid is a Clinton/Soros shill who's husband manages Soros funds.
It's all rigged top/down and look at all the downvote from the r/politics brigade
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
Yeah...I expect nothing less from the hypocritical projection driven hardcore democrats. They have no problem pointing out conflicts of interest when it suits their own agenda while at the same time denying any possibility of conflict of interest whatsoever in incidences where it doesn't suit their agenda.
The list of examples has grown so extensive I don't even bother anymore.
The DNC are just pouring gas on the dumpster fire they've become.
"We are the victims"...they are saying once again. Classic identity politics all over again.
A new party is going to end up forming at some point in the near future. And when it happens the democrats will really be screwed...because they'll still be claiming victimization while doing the exact same things they are accusing others of doing that makes them the victims.
It amazes me that they can't see it and that choosing to persecute those who do see it and say something about it exposes the hypocrisy even more.
This whole suit is about trying to raise donations when it's all said and done. And when that becomes clear (which it will) they will lose even more of their base who are sick and tired of being manipulated and lied to.
How they plan on stifling discussion about what happened to large portions of the 2016 donations while at the same time trying to play the victim in order to raise donations is the epitome of their complete inability to realize they are dealing with a public that is becoming more informed and aware.
They are still failing to have a dialogue of any kind with the people they seek support from. They were delusional in 2016 and they continue to be so.
The republicans have their own set of serious problems which is why I'm pretty confident we will see a third party form out of the clusterfuck politics in the US has become.
1 armorkingII 2018-04-20
It's wrong when that appointee owes his career to the plaintiffs husband.
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
I'm sure you don't.
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
oh....like the DNC followed the rules?
1 Lsdnyc 2018-04-20
a classic diversion technique. My point is that not all people are partisan. Most judges do their job, and use the LAW to make their decisions. This partisan rhetoric is destructive to our democracy.
1 AIsuicide 2018-04-20
We're they appointed by the president's spouse? Yeah...see, that's the important part you left out.
But I'm not surprised.
1 asailorssway 2018-04-20
Completely random... I'm sure.