Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nocoolnamejim

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Team
    Boise State
  • Gender
  • Location
    Meridian, Idaho
  • Interests
    NBA Basketball, College Football, video games, books, and rum.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,452 profile views
  1. nocoolnamejim

    Fantasy Football Discussion and Smack Talk Thread

    To the two owners who completed the Bell for Murray trade: Since Bell's team played on Thursday, Bell is locked for the week and I can't push the trade through immediately. It will process after both players unlock next week.
  2. I saw this and it made me a smile. Things like this serve a doubly good purpose. Hopefully Mug won't mind me posting this here and raising awareness of the good cause. Essentially, the Muslim community in Pittsburgh started a fundraising drive to provide, in their own words, Fundraising proceeds will help with the immediate, short-term needs of the injured victims and grieving families - including funeral expenses and medical bills. No amount of money will bring back their loved ones, but we do hope to lessen their burden in some way. The fundraising target will be raised if we quickly hit the initial goal of $25,000 (Update: the goal is now $50,000 after reaching the initial target in only 6 hours). Though this is a Muslim-led campaign, we welcome friends of all faiths to contribute (all donations are tax-deductible). CelebrateMercy will immediately begin transferring funds raised to our local partner on the ground: The Islamic Center of Pittsburgh (ICP). ICP will be working directly with the Tree of Life synagogue to distribute funds to affected families. https://www.launchgood.com/project/muslims_unite_for_pittsburgh_synagogue#!/ They've reached almost $220K so far.
  3. nocoolnamejim

    Fantasy Football Discussion and Smack Talk Thread

    A guy in my other league streamed Denver that week...and still managed to lose. 10 team league in that one so the talent isn't spread quite so thin as it is in our 12 teamer.
  4. That link says few things of any usefulness but it definitely does get interesting towards the end of it. Here's the entire story. "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a new request Friday for the Justice Department to open a second investigation into Michael Avenatti, saying the anti-Trump lawyer lied to Congress through a second affidavit. This is a fact that is stipulated. A partisan Republican sent this request before the midterms. It's incorrect that Grassley actually said that Avenatti lied though. Grassley's to careful for that because if the investigation turns out nothing, he opens himself to a lawsuit. He asked the Justice Department to look into whether or not Avenatti lied. Sloppy writing. “Simply put, the sworn statement Mr. Avenatti provided the committee on October 2 appears to be an outright fraud,” Mr. Grassley wrote in asking the FBI to conduct a review. Earlier this week Mr. Grassley asked the FBI to look at whether the lawyer and his client Julie Swetnick lied when they alleged Justice Brett Kavanaugh was complicit in gang rapes at high school parties in the 1980s. Ms. Swetnick’s story changed, though, and her charges remain uncorroborated. Mr. Grassley says Mr. Avenatti appeared to be trying to obstruct the Senate’s confirmation process — a federal crime. In what way did the story change? Was it meaningful? Was it criminal or merely correcting a detail? Oddly, the article doesn't say. The charges remain uncorroborated? You mean except for the three separate accusers and multiple classmates saying they believe them but weren't direct witnesses? In an effort to back up Ms. Swetnick, Mr. Avenatti in early October submitted another affidavit — though he did not reveal to the committee who it was from." And the affidavit said what? Avenatti submitted an affidavit....that alleged what? Just like an earlier part of the article, this is incredibly lacking in any meaningful detail. He did, however, put NBC in touch with the author. But she turned out to blow a hold in Mr. Avenatti’s version. I assume this was supposed to say "hole" and not hold. And so what if he put a news agency in touch with the author? Lawyers often use public pressure on behalf of their clients. Over the course of several conversations with the network the woman said she originally only “skimmed” the affidavit Mr. Avenatti filed under her name, but upon looking at it in more detail later she realized it contained falsehoods. Again, what falsehoods? Were they meaningful? Did she change her big picture story in any way or was she just correcting details? Any SERIOUS journalistic article would expand on this point because it is so critical to knowing whether or not this was criminal or just corrections. After NBC confronted Mr. Avenatti, he said she must have been mistaken. But when NBC called her back, she again repeated that the affidavit contained false statements. NBC reported: “At one point, in an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process, he added in the phone call, “How about this, on background, it’s not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?” Mr. Grassley concluded: “When reporters pressed him on these discrepancies, Mr. Avenatti attempted to deceive them in an apparent effort to thwart the truth coming out.” This last part about NBC news is pretty cherry picked from the full article. Which I'll link here, as well as posting the relevant section which paints a much more nuanced picture of Avenatti's conduct. At one point, in an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process, he added in the phone call, "How about this, on background, it's not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?" After NBC News received text messages from the woman refuting some of the claims in the declaration, NBC reached out again to Avenatti, who defended the declaration. "I have no idea what you are talking about," he said in a text. "I have a signed declaration that states otherwise together with multiple audio recordings where she stated exactly what is in the declaration. There were also multiple witnesses to our discussions." He sent a follow-up message moments later: "I just confirmed with her yet again that everything in the declaration is true and correct," Avenatti said. "She must have been confused by your question." Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally-worded text backing Avenatti. "Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue," the text read. But when reached by phone minutes later, the woman again insisted that she never saw Kavanaugh spike punch or act inappropriately toward women. She said she's "been consistent in what she's told Michael." In a subsequent text on Oct. 5, she wrote, "I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words." There's a lot to unpack from the last part. But it certainly isn't as clear cut as you're claiming. A lawyer had a signed declaration and audio recordings. He also made the allegations, on her behalf, publicly for weeks and Swetnick did not dispute them. My guess? She saw what went down during the confirmation hearings where Ford was all but called a liar, Kavanaugh was confirmed anyway, and decided it just wasn't worth it to try and get justice. But that's only one interpretation. Another possibility is, as you said, that she was lying all along for.......why again exactly? What's her motive here? But it is possible. I just don't see a ton of upside for why she'd do so.
  5. nocoolnamejim

    Stock Market has erased all of its 2018 gains

    "Come invest in these Trump hotels and golf courses." Seems like a pretty open invitation for corruption to me.
  6. nocoolnamejim


    One of these days I'm going to figure out why being a smart, highly educated, person is a bad thing. Re: "Intellectuals" It used to be that the entire political spectrum wanted to be known as the smart guys.
  7. Different subject for a different day. That wasn't what we were debating at the moment. You basically flat out said that Avenatti and Swetnick lied to Congress and delivered false testimony and pointed towards the Grassley referral as your evidence of this. Essentially, that Avenatti suborned perjury to Congress to try and tank the Kavanaugh nomination. I'm saying that if that's the case, then surely they'll be prosecuted for it...if that's a real thing and not just a midterms stunt. Just curious on if you're willing to lay money on who is right on this or not.
  8. Given the devices recovered were actually functional, the FBI has already arrested a suspect, and he's a well documented Trump supporter with pictures and everything... ...no, I think the False Flag defense ship has sailed at this point and that's no longer a defensible position.
  9. *wry smile* Lock her up! Lock her up! How about we make a wager on the likelihood that the accuser or the lawyer get prosecuted? That referral by Grassley is just a midterm stunt. I'll put money on it if you like? If Avenatti gets prosecuted you win. If it never happens, just like it never happened with Hillary, you win. But we'd need to set a date by when it would happen by. After all, Trump still gets his supporters chanting "Lock em up" at his rallies despite having unified control over government for the last two years.
  10. nocoolnamejim


    It was. As one part of a larger bill.
  11. Well, for starters he did manage to basically prove that Trump paid Stormy off. After Trump lied repeatedly about it. He also produced the goods when he said he had an additional accuser on Kavanaugh that had far worse charges. And that definitely made the confirmation hearing more challenging. Although ultimately Kavanaugh was seated, I suspect it blunted the effectiveness of Dems in heavy red states voting against it and the usefulness in the GOP running ads on the issue in certain Senate races. Handed certain deep red state Dems a ready made excuse to vote against the confirmation. The Stormy Daniels thing likely also lead to Cohen's office being raided, which got him to plead guilty and flip on Trump. It also revealed that Hannity was a Cohen client. I mean, it's not an unblemished record, but it's not nothing either.
  12. I have a buddy who thinks Avenatti is the Dems' version of Draymond Green. The sort of guy who does the dirty work and/or takes cheap shots that you hate if you're on the other side, but gets you victories. It's an interesting comparison.
  13. nocoolnamejim


    I was going to say this but you beat me to it. Trying to prevent the sort of free rider problem that Soup identified, while simultaneously making it so that everyone could obtain coverage, is the entire thinking behind the individual mandate.
  14. Absolutely true. But that's why I have asked (and keep asking) for examples of Dem party leaders suggesting it. They'll be much more culpable when/if such a hypothetical happens than if it's some nut acting on their own accord. I don't want to let Trump escape from the culpability for his rhetoric here in motivating this individual. A giant megaphone carries responsibility to use carefully.
  15. That's the point I'm trying to make with my comments on "authority figures" and how it increases the chances. Yes, you're quite right that this guy was clearly a nut. You're quite right that there are nuts on both sides of the political spectrum and some nuts don't need permission before they do nutty things. I'll stipulate to all of that. Where I differ is that, well, look at the 12 targets and then google each of them and Trump's twitter feed. They're essentially Trump's enemies list and he's railed about them loudly and repeatedly, while frequently endorsing the idea of violence. Someone, think it was toonkey, talked about the idea of an accelerant on a flame earlier. I thought that was a good metaphor. Trump's rhetoric not only made it more permissable for this guy to use violence, he also provided the targets and painted a dystopian picture that inflamed an already unstable individual. Maybe the chances this guy does what he does without such motivation are, say, one in twenty and Trump increased then to two in twenty. That's still meaningful.