Biden runs up a 32-point lead on Bernie
No respondents expressed support for Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska). In other words, they finished below the Hickenlooper line, the political equivalent of the Mendoza line.
Day: May 7, 2019
That guy is all the way down the rabbit hole!
You need a “previously on” narrator to keep up with it.
Previously on:
- Wohl first claimed there was a sexual scandal involving Mayor Pete
- That was exposed as something Wohl concocted
- In order to defend himself, Wohl called a press conference
- Wohl’s partner tweeted, “Hundreds of leftist protestors are set to descend on our Wednesday Press conference. We WILL NOT surrender to the mob!”
Which brings us to today’s story:
- Wohl also may have created the fake protest against his own appearance to defend the fake scandal!
This is not the first time Wohl and his partner have been caught scamming. They are the same guys who supposedly had proof of a Robert Mueller sex scandal. If you’ll recall, they also created an “intelligence agency” as the source of their research, in which the pictures of the agents consisted of Wohl and various Hollywood stars!
I admit their buffoonery is hilarious, but I’m curious how they’ve avoided jail. A lot of these shenanigans sound like more than just political dirty tricks. It sounds to me like there are some crimes in there.
“Falwell subsequently barnstormed with Trump and vouched for the candidate’s Christian virtues.”
Talk about tit-for-tat.
(I’m assuming there were “tits” in those photos. At least. There was probably a lot more. Cohen said, “I actually have one of the photos. It’s terrible.” Jeez … terrible? I hope it’s really kinky shit!)
“While The Times did not obtain the president’s actual tax returns, it received the information contained in the returns from someone who had legal access to it. The Times was then able to find matching results in the I.R.S. information on top earners — a publicly available database that each year comprises a one-third sampling of those taxpayers, with identifying details removed.”
Fun fact: In 1990 and 1991, based on the people in that public info, Trump had the lowest income of anyone in the United States! He was such a big loser that he lost twice as much money as the second-biggest loser! His losses were so big that in 1991 he alone accounted for fully 1% of all business losses declared that year by all individual American taxpayers. His stats dominated the list of losers like Wayne Gretzky’s stats dominated hockey in his prime, or Babe Ruth’s dominated baseball in his youth. Trump is to losing as Babe Ruth was to winning!
(We’re number one! We’re number one!)
Now, I don’t know the rules of journalism and wouldn’t respect them if I did, but as I see it, the Times went about this all wrong. The way to do it would be to write the story based on the details of the “anonymous taxpayer,” claiming it was Trump, but not demonstrating how you know for sure. In that case, his response would be to deny that the person they called the country’s biggest loser was him. He would probably even use the term “country’s biggest loser”! Only THEN comes the revelation that you know it is him because …
They learned nothing from Omarosa. The way to deal with Trump when you can prove several negatives about him is to make a single claim based on your most solid evidence, without telling him you have the proof. He will then lie, scream “fake news” and deny everything, at which point you produce the irrefutable proof, thereby catching him in both the original negative and the lie. At that point, you introduce another negative point you can prove, but again without the proof, just daring him to do any more denying. At that point he’s trapped, just as he was with Omarosa, and has to keep his mouth shut. Then you keep revealing the negatives one at a time, day after day, to keep the story alive and dominating the news cycle, so he can’t pull off some misdirection and change the narrative.
Omarosa had dealt with him so long, and is so cagey, that she knew exactly how to proceed. Cohen had a pretty good idea, but didn’t fully commit to the recording idea. The rest of the world doesn’t seem to have figured it out yet.
Genie Bouchard’s bottom makes another appearance, but with a plus this time – she tugs her top down!
I downloaded the data and analyzed who the 650 former federal prosecutors are. Average years at DOJ=13. Most years at DOJ, 41. 63% had hired in under Republican presidents, so it's not like they're biased against Republican presidents. Here's more info:https://t.co/9UItK3sSIg
— Jane Boon, Ph.D. (@JaneEBoon) May 7, 2019
Lindsey Vonn bending over in a thong-style one-piece swimsuit
Suranne Jones is very friendly with an unidentified and very busty blonde in Gentleman Jack (s1e2), a new HBO series.
Perhaps there is a very slight and fleeting glimpse of Suranne’s breast in this frame, or perhaps not.
An erotic scene, and apparently filmed just as a brief flashback/cutaway in a series with no other nudity so far. All that set-up for two seconds involving an anonymous character? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Perhaps it will have additional significance later.
As I see it, this is a hard prosecution. Who knows if it will stand up in court, because the investigators seem to have made a boner, and Agent Penis can’t seem to come to the trial, but perhaps the DA can rise to the occasion.
OK, I got it out of my system now.
You might say I shot my load.
OK, it was almost out.
She’s pitching Cosmo magazine. The original source of this has already been removed from YouTube, then re-uploaded in a censored version, but some people had already downloaded it and preserved it for the ages. In the original YouTube version, the breast appears 31 seconds in.
Here’s a large, color-adjusted capture.
Here’s another version, different color treatment. (More realistic)
She will appear in the June Cosmo. Most, if not all, of the official shots were covered in today’s Daily Mail article, and/or this Imgur album. Cosmo’s official promo is seen below.