DC Tom

You know he'll slither his way down here eventually...

That's not right. What Manning did was well documented - Assmange had nothing to do with physically removing the data from computers. If they'd argued "conspiracy to commit," that Assmange encouraged Manning to access the data, that'd be less inaccurate. But this charge is total bull####. Leverage, like you said - charging someone with a crime they didn't commit to force them to give testimony. Same nonsense they pulled with Flynn...wasn't right then, isn't now. But NOW...they're making me defend ***** Assmange, *****!

***** WHAT?????

We don't really know that, since so far we've only been served Mueller Light, not the Mueller Genuine Draft.

Two. You forgot Kavanaugh.

Judging by what I've read this morning, he's a good guy, and the woman who accused him of rape should not be believed.

So Assmange is taken in to custody...but only AFTER does the DoJ file charges, at which point extradition hearings commence. My question is: who in DOJ filed the charges? Seems like an important point concerning Assmange's survival: if it's the anti-Trump cabal within DOJ and the IC, and given the timing of the arrest, what are the odds Assmange survives the next 72 hours?

He's got my vote for president.

He's a hypocritical self-serving asshat who published secret information under the guise of being some sort of Robin-Hood type, who's probably now being railroaded on ginned-up charges in an abuse of justice.

This makes no sense. Because the DNC rigged their primary to screw over Bernie, Assmange influenced the election?

No matter what, he's still Ass-mange to me.

"Further arrested." That's great. Where's Monty Python when you need them.

I think there's an additional reason, that they're afraid that addressing the issue will highlight the very real role they've played in creating it, with their mendacious pandering and spineless inability to coherently address the morass of conflicting law and regulation on the subject. After 20 years of paying lip service to "immigration reform," they'd run a serious risk of being exposed as fools if they tried to address the crisis now. And most people (with some notable exceptions - Warren, Trump, gatorman, etc.) will go way the hell out of their way to avoid looking foolish.

Wasn't he hiding from rape charges in Sweden? I mean...I think he's an #######...but what charges are pending in the US, again? Edit: Oh, he's charged with computer hacking. Four hours AFTER he's taken in to custody.

Anyone who thinks there isn't a crisis at the border is a moron. There is an obvious crisis - there are far more people attempting to cross than can be processed, under any definition of "process" you care to use. Debating whether or not there's a "crisis" is irresponsible and detracts from the discussion that should be happening: how should we address the very real crisis that's happening.

From what I've heard, it wasn't a violation of international law: Ecuador withdrew sanctuary, then invited the Brits in to take him in to custody.

In the 1850s, a man named Albert sold himself to Thomas J. Jackson in order to pay off a debt. This was known as "slavery." But I'm pretty sure that liberals will support this modern practice of selling yourself to pay off tuition as "not slavery" on the principle "But this is different, because...shut up, racist!"

Looks more like The Mandarin.

Don't ask how to pay for it. Ask what we'll do with our new-found prosperity.

Fall of 2008, "bail out Main Street not Wall Street" was pretty bad. Maybe not this bad, but pretty close.

No, they recommended Barrabas.

I click that link, and it complains about disabling my ad blocker. Sure, NBC, I'm going inconvenience myself and reward you for reading your nonsense. Tell ya what...you start reporting news and not bull####, and I'll disable my ad blocker.

I am the one who knocks. - the better WW.

It also makes a powerful statement about gang rape.

I'm guessing not your ***** poetry slams.