CNN's Acosta: Trump lied about birtherism, Inauguration crowd, Comey tapes, but nobody had to resign

[Faun]

Did they decide they HAD the story they were going with? No crowd at Trump's inauguration! Took the pictures before the crowd got there and then never took another because it wouldn't fit with their narrative? Where the hell are the photos from 12:30? From 1:00? Why don't they seem to exist?

Who cares about pictures from 12:30 or later? His speech ended at 12:18 est. You think his crowd showed up after he left??

 

[Faun]

Was there some kind of ban on photographs taken after noontime that day?

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

Why do you continue to lie? You were shown photos with Don THE Con giving his short 15 minute speech, he could be seen in the monitor screens on the right, and yet you still lie about no photos after noon and no white areas while Tramp was speaking.

When did I ever say anything about white areas? As for what's on the monitors? When did those come on? What did they show before the speech started? To be quite frank with you...the main stream media has done nothing to inspire trust in what they show us! As I said before...I've never maintained that Trump's crowd was as large as Obama's. What I've said all along is that the main stream media did everything they could to make the crowd appear as small as they could...just as they did everything they could to make the crowds protesting against Trump that day look as HUGE as they could!

Reality's really a ***** for you, idn't it?

Here's Trump at 12:18pm EST as Trump wrapped up his speech. Maybe his crowd showed up after??

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Since when does the right give a shit if a special counsel is partial??

Ken Starr filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Paula Jones prior to being selected to investigate Bill Clinton -- who was being sued by Paula Jones.....

Can you name anyone on the right who objected to such obvious bias?

Can you name one who challenged Starr's charge accusation of perjury because he wasn't impartial?

You have linked facts that Ken Starr had any relationship with those he represented? Let's just see how knowledgeable you are of the facts.

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

Obviously you don't know regarding legal representation

LOLOL

Since when does the right give a shit if a special counsel is partial??

Ken Starr filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Paula Jones prior to being selected to investigate Bill Clinton -- who was being sued by Paula Jones.....

Can you name anyone on the right who objected to such obvious bias?

Can you name one who challenged Starr's charge accusation of perjury because he wasn't impartial?

You have linked facts that Ken Starr had any relationship with those he represented? Let's just see how knowledgeable you are of the facts.

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

So I give you a clear cut example of a council's inability to show impartiality, and you come back with a phrase you found on a web page to which you can't explain nor go into specifics concerning the situation the term was actually making reference to. Does that sound about right? Why don't you reply with case you do know something about and have the ability to explain and make your argument beyond throwing a "phrase" you read somewhere. From here it doesn't look like you know Jack about the legality behind needing to show showing impartiality.

You DO know that if a prosecutor or a criminal investigator is in any way connected (be it a friend, family member, someone they worked closely with, etc) to those they are representing... or even a judge hearing the case has a personal tie with any of the attorney's representing the case... that they can't, on legal footing, be connected with the outcome of that particular case.

Again with the strawman. I said nothing about whether or not Mueller should or should not refuse himself. I showed where Starr was not impartial. It matters not to me that you can't deal with that.

 

[edthecynic]

Was there some kind of ban on photographs taken after noontime that day?

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

Why do you continue to lie? You were shown photos with Don THE Con giving his short 15 minute speech, he could be seen in the monitor screens on the right, and yet you still lie about no photos after noon and no white areas while Tramp was speaking.

When did I ever say anything about white areas? As for what's on the monitors? When did those come on? What did they show before the speech started? To be quite frank with you...the main stream media has done nothing to inspire trust in what they show us! As I said before...I've never maintained that Trump's crowd was as large as Obama's. What I've said all along is that the main stream media did everything they could to make the crowd appear as small as they could...just as they did everything they could to make the crowds protesting against Trump that day look as HUGE as they could!

Reality's really a ***** for you, idn't it?

Here's Trump at 12:18pm EST as Trump wrapped up his speech. Maybe his crowd showed up after??

The lying scum Right will deny that was the end of Don THE Con's speech even though if you click on the photo to enlarge it you can clearly see, on the monitor screens on the right, the raised fist Tramp gave as he ended his speech!!!!

 

[2aguy]

Shame on CNN and Donald Trump for being fake news purveyors. Great point by Acosta.

CNN's Jim Acosta: Trump lied about birtherism, Inauguration crowds, and Comey tapes, but "nobody had to resign"

Hilary started the birther movement...Trump ended it by forcing obama to produce the fake birth certificate. The inauguration crowds....big deal.....and Trump never said he had tapes...he said Comey better hope there aren't tapes.........

CNN made up a fake story, they aren't a politician..it is their freaking job to report the news truthfully........Trump didn't lie about his job, they did.

 

[2aguy]

You have linked facts that Ken Starr had any relationship with those he represented? Let's just see how knowledgeable you are of the facts.

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

Obviously you don't know regarding legal representation

You have linked facts that Ken Starr had any relationship with those he represented? Let's just see how knowledgeable you are of the facts.

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

So I give you a clear cut example of a council's inability to show impartiality, and you come back with a phrase you found on a web page to which you can't explain nor go into specifics concerning the situation the term was actually making reference to. Does that sound about right? Why don't you reply with case you do know something about and have the ability to explain and make your argument beyond throwing a "phrase" you read somewhere. From here it doesn't look like you know Jack about the legality behind needing to show showing impartiality.

You DO know that if a prosecutor or a criminal investigator is in any way connected (be it a friend, family member, someone they worked closely with, etc) to those they are representing... or even a judge hearing the case has a personal tie with any of the attorney's representing the case... that they can't, on legal footing, be connected with the outcome of that particular case.

Again with the strawman. I said nothing about whether or not Mueller should or should not refuse himself. I showed where Starr was not impartial. It matters not to me that you can't deal with that.

Starr was the most impartial guy there.....and everyone said it even the democrats.....until he caught clinton committing perjury and getting the people around him to commit perjury...

 

[Faun]

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

Why do you continue to lie? You were shown photos with Don THE Con giving his short 15 minute speech, he could be seen in the monitor screens on the right, and yet you still lie about no photos after noon and no white areas while Tramp was speaking.

When did I ever say anything about white areas? As for what's on the monitors? When did those come on? What did they show before the speech started? To be quite frank with you...the main stream media has done nothing to inspire trust in what they show us! As I said before...I've never maintained that Trump's crowd was as large as Obama's. What I've said all along is that the main stream media did everything they could to make the crowd appear as small as they could...just as they did everything they could to make the crowds protesting against Trump that day look as HUGE as they could!

Reality's really a ***** for you, idn't it?

Here's Trump at 12:18pm EST as Trump wrapped up his speech. Maybe his crowd showed up after??

The lying scum Right will deny that was the end of Don THE Con's speech even though if you click on the photo to enlarge it you can clearly see, on the monitor screens on the right, the raised fist Tramp gave as he ended his speech!!!!

But you see, it was after that when Trump's crowd finally showed up. After Trump left, after the media left, after they turned off the cameras.... then millions of Trump supporters showed up.

 

[Faun]

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

Obviously you don't know regarding legal representation

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

So I give you a clear cut example of a council's inability to show impartiality, and you come back with a phrase you found on a web page to which you can't explain nor go into specifics concerning the situation the term was actually making reference to. Does that sound about right? Why don't you reply with case you do know something about and have the ability to explain and make your argument beyond throwing a "phrase" you read somewhere. From here it doesn't look like you know Jack about the legality behind needing to show showing impartiality.

You DO know that if a prosecutor or a criminal investigator is in any way connected (be it a friend, family member, someone they worked closely with, etc) to those they are representing... or even a judge hearing the case has a personal tie with any of the attorney's representing the case... that they can't, on legal footing, be connected with the outcome of that particular case.

Again with the strawman. I said nothing about whether or not Mueller should or should not refuse himself. I showed where Starr was not impartial. It matters not to me that you can't deal with that.

Starr was the most impartial guy there.....and everyone said it even the democrats.....until he caught clinton committing perjury and getting the people around him to commit perjury...

Riiiight... and by impartial, you mean someone who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

 

[iceberg]

So now Trump is a "huckster" because he scared James Comey into having to tell the truth with the threat of a tape? That's preventing lies...not telling them!

Comey would have told the truth no matter what. Trump bluffed that he had a tape, and when he did, Comey told congress he wanted Trump to have a tape to bolster his testimony. And remember the result of Trumps bluff. He went from not being under investigation, to being a target of the special counsel.

was he telling the truth then when he said the clinton "investigation" was only "matter"?

i would say no but i'm trying to be objective, not sell something.

 

[Oldstyle]

Was there some kind of ban on photographs taken after noontime that day?

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

Why do you continue to lie? You were shown photos with Don THE Con giving his short 15 minute speech, he could be seen in the monitor screens on the right, and yet you still lie about no photos after noon and no white areas while Tramp was speaking.

When did I ever say anything about white areas? As for what's on the monitors? When did those come on? What did they show before the speech started? To be quite frank with you...the main stream media has done nothing to inspire trust in what they show us! As I said before...I've never maintained that Trump's crowd was as large as Obama's. What I've said all along is that the main stream media did everything they could to make the crowd appear as small as they could...just as they did everything they could to make the crowds protesting against Trump that day look as HUGE as they could!

Reality's really a ***** for you, idn't it?

Here's Trump at 12:18pm EST as Trump wrapped up his speech. Maybe his crowd showed up after??

Reality is I don't really care about how many people were there! It doesn't change who won the election. Quite frankly, Faun...I think you folks on the left obsess about things like this because you can't come to grips with reality. Trump won. Get over it. He's going to be President for at least four years...longer if you snowflakes don't find a message that resonates with Middle Class America! How's THAT for reality?

 

[Oldstyle]

The average age of Democratic leadership in the House is now 76. You're led by a group of senile, career politicians who have lived inside of the Beltway for so long they don't have a clue what the average American is looking for nor do they CARE! You'd be better served getting rid of Nancy Pelosi than spending all of your time trying to get rid of Donald Trump! But if you want to do the stupid thing...don't let me stop you!

 

[hadit]

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

Why do you continue to lie? You were shown photos with Don THE Con giving his short 15 minute speech, he could be seen in the monitor screens on the right, and yet you still lie about no photos after noon and no white areas while Tramp was speaking.

When did I ever say anything about white areas? As for what's on the monitors? When did those come on? What did they show before the speech started? To be quite frank with you...the main stream media has done nothing to inspire trust in what they show us! As I said before...I've never maintained that Trump's crowd was as large as Obama's. What I've said all along is that the main stream media did everything they could to make the crowd appear as small as they could...just as they did everything they could to make the crowds protesting against Trump that day look as HUGE as they could!

Reality's really a ***** for you, idn't it?

Here's Trump at 12:18pm EST as Trump wrapped up his speech. Maybe his crowd showed up after??

Reality is I don't really care about how many people were there! It doesn't change who won the election. Quite frankly, Faun...I think you folks on the left obsess about things like this because you can't come to grips with reality. Trump won. Get over it. He's going to be President for at least four years...longer if you snowflakes don't find a message that resonates with Middle Class America! How's THAT for reality?

There is a great risk that all the abject hatred will backfire, badly. Strange, because Trump is not very likable and all they really need to do is act like adults. I'm confident they won't, though.

 

[Faun]

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

Why do you continue to lie? You were shown photos with Don THE Con giving his short 15 minute speech, he could be seen in the monitor screens on the right, and yet you still lie about no photos after noon and no white areas while Tramp was speaking.

When did I ever say anything about white areas? As for what's on the monitors? When did those come on? What did they show before the speech started? To be quite frank with you...the main stream media has done nothing to inspire trust in what they show us! As I said before...I've never maintained that Trump's crowd was as large as Obama's. What I've said all along is that the main stream media did everything they could to make the crowd appear as small as they could...just as they did everything they could to make the crowds protesting against Trump that day look as HUGE as they could!

Reality's really a ***** for you, idn't it?

Here's Trump at 12:18pm EST as Trump wrapped up his speech. Maybe his crowd showed up after??

Reality is I don't really care about how many people were there! It doesn't change who won the election. Quite frankly, Faun...I think you folks on the left obsess about things like this because you can't come to grips with reality. Trump won. Get over it. He's going to be President for at least four years...longer if you snowflakes don't find a message that resonates with Middle Class America! How's THAT for reality?

LOLOL

It's cute how you refer to proving you lie as "obsession."

 

[Little-Acorn]

After Trump left, after the media left, after they turned off the cameras.... then millions of Trump supporters showed up.

Poor little faun. All he can do is beg people to not see what everybody can plainly see.

Thanks, little faun, for giving normal people the opportunity again and again to see the truth.

Tell me, little faun, if you think this photo was taken "After Trump left, after the media left, after they turned off the cameras...."
I'll give you a hint: Who is standing at the podium, with this COMPLETELY FULL mall audience?

Poor little faun is descending into complete derangement. He actually thinks that if he keeps lying about what this photo shows, eventually he will find someone somewhere who actually believes him.

 

[Faun]

After Trump left, after the media left, after they turned off the cameras.... then millions of Trump supporters showed up.

Poor little faun. All he can do is beg people to not see what everybody can plainly see.

Thanks, little faun, for giving normal people the opportunity again and again to see the truth.

Tell me, little faun, if you think this photo was taken "After Trump left, after the media left, after they turned off the cameras...."
I'll give you a hint: Who is standing at the podium, with this COMPLETELY FULL mall audience?

Poor little faun is descending into complete derangement. He actually thinks that if he keeps lying about what this photo shows, eventually he will find someone somewhere who actually believes him.

You poor thing, bless your heart.

No, the mall was not full while Trump was speaking. This picture, taken while he was speaking, proves it. I don't care how delusional you are.

 

[edthecynic]

Reality is I don't really care about how many people were there! It doesn't change who won

Reality is you cared until you realized that Don THE Con's lie that "the 20-block area all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed" could no longer be defended and rather than admit that Tramp is worthless lying scum made in the image of Gawwwwwwd-da, you say you don't care how much of a lying POS he is, you only care that the liar won.

 

[Oldstyle]

Reality is I don't really care about how many people were there! It doesn't change who won

Reality is you cared until you realized that Don THE Con's lie that "the 20-block area all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed" could no longer be defended and rather than admit that Tramp is worthless lying scum made in the image of Gawwwwwwd-da, you say you don't care how much of a lying POS he is, you only care that the liar won.

I didn't care on day one and I STILL don't care! Dude, what the **** difference does it make how many people show up at a Presidential inauguration? This is such a non issue it borders on farce that people like you still obsess about it.

At the end of the day...having a big crowd at his inauguration didn't make Barry's agenda any better than if the crowd had been small! Having a big crowd didn't make his stimulus create jobs...nor did it make his signature health care legislation well crafted!

You know what? I could care less if Donald Trump is an over the top self promoter that not only sees the glass as half full...he sees it as over flowing! The ONLY thing I care about is whether his agenda puts people back to work...and makes us safer. The rest is posturing and I don't care about it!

 

[Faun]

Reality is I don't really care about how many people were there! It doesn't change who won

Reality is you cared until you realized that Don THE Con's lie that "the 20-block area all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed" could no longer be defended and rather than admit that Tramp is worthless lying scum made in the image of Gawwwwwwd-da, you say you don't care how much of a lying POS he is, you only care that the liar won.

I didn't care on day one and I STILL don't care! Dude, what the **** difference does it make how many people show up at a Presidential inauguration? This is such a non issue it borders on farce that people like you still obsess about it.

At the end of the day...having a big crowd at his inauguration didn't make Barry's agenda any better than if the crowd had been small! Having a big crowd didn't make his stimulus create jobs...nor did it make his signature health care legislation well crafted!

You know what? I could care less if Donald Trump is an over the top self promoter that not only sees the glass as half full...he sees it as over flowing! The ONLY thing I care about is whether his agenda puts people back to work...and makes us safer. The rest is posturing and I don't care about it!

Well it obviously matters to Trump who started off his first term with the lie he sent his press Secretary out to tell about it being the largest crowd ever.

 

[edthecynic]

I didn't care on day one and I STILL don't care! Dude, what the **** difference does it make how many people show up at a Presidential inauguration? This is such a non issue it borders on farce that people like you still obsess about it.

The difference is it shows Don THE Con for the lying scum he is. And if YOU weren't obsessed with it you would not have had so many posts in this thread!!!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

I didn't care on day one and I STILL don't care! Dude, what the **** difference does it make how many people show up at a Presidential inauguration? This is such a non issue it borders on farce that people like you still obsess about it.

The difference is it shows Don THE Con for the lying scum he is. And if YOU weren't obsessed with it you would not have had so many posts in this thread!!!!!

THAT right there, Ed is the first intelligent point you've made in this string! Why AM I wasting my time arguing something as stupid as this with a chat room full of people who spend all day posting nonsense? Get back to me when you want to debate what Trump's legislative agenda is...you know...the stuff that actually IS important?