Forum Thread

Every Friday is Black Friday

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 61 - 75 of 177 Prev 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 .. 12 Next
  • jaredsxtn
    2018-03-20 04:40:20 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Ray Pooch Wrote: Just to be clear, perjury is lying under oath, after you have been summoned to the court room, had opportunity to consult counsel, and ample time to prepare your testimony. You can be charged with lying to the FBI even if they show up on your doorstep and don't even tell you they're the feds. It's a crime that has raised numerous objections on the basis that it is a threat to one's civil rights. When we're not desperately abandoning our principles in order to bring down the current President, it's the kind of authoritarian law we liberals protest.


    corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disput...

    We can go back and forth about the law, but here are the facts:

    Michael Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI (not someone who didn't "even tell [him] they're the feds) during an interview with the FBI on 1/24/2017.

    George Papadopoulos admitted to lying to the FBI (not someone who didn't "even tell [him] they're the feds) during an interview with the FBI on 1/27/2017.

    Rick Gates admitted to conspiracy against the United States and to lying to the FBI (not someone who didn't "even tell [him] they're the feds) on 2/23/2018.

    I am a firm and unabashed believer in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, but Flynn's, Papadopoulos', and Gates' Constitutional rights don't seem to have been infringed here. They weren't victims of entrapment, but rather got caught lying to Federal officers.

    You may not like it, but that doesn't mean there's some vast FBI conspiracy to take down Donald's Administration.

  • Ray Pooch
    2018-03-20 04:45:10 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Ray Pooch Wrote: Wasn't that Flynn and Popadopoulos's only crime? If so, then they were entirely innocent until they heard the knock of the secret police.

    It's the crime they pleaded guilty to. That's different than being their only crime.

    It's the only crime they've been charged with.

    It's a sacred principle of liberalism that we should hold a man innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law. It's even more sacred, surely, that we should hold him innocent of the crimes of which he hasn't even been charged.

    Here's my thing - how would Republicans be reacting if Hillary Clinton won the election and we later found out that she and her minions coordinated with the Russian Federation to wage an information warfare campaign with the intention to tilt a Presidential election?

    If they "found out" that they did this, then I assume they'd be righteously irate. And if Democrats "find out" that Trump conspired with the Russians, they too will have every right to be upset. But with "17" intelligence agencies on the case since at least 2015, with all the resources of the surveillance state, with four extensive high profile governmental investigations and with a lake of spilled ink, it is surely not too soon to ask what hard evidence we have amassed. The response I got was "none, but with luck we might pin something else on him."

  • jaredsxtn
    2018-03-20 04:56:32 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Ray Pooch Wrote:It's the only crime they've been charged with.


    It's a sacred principle of liberalism that we should hold a man innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law. It's even more sacred, surely, that we should hold him innocent of the crimes of which he hasn't even been charged.

    That's because they made a plea deal!

    People "plea down" all the time, Ray. You understand that, right??

    Ray Pooch Wrote: If they "found out" that they did this, then I assume they'd be righteously irate. And if Democrats "find out" that Trump conspired with the Russians, they too will have every right to be upset. But with "17" intelligence agencies on the case since at least 2015, with all the resources of the surveillance state, with four extensive high profile governmental investigations and with a lake of spilled ink, it is surely not too soon to ask what hard evidence we have amassed. The response I got was "none, but with luck we might pin something else on him."

    Republicans control all levers of our government and the House just shut down their investigation because they want to protect their guy. I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate follows suit. And the intelligence agencies report to Donald.

    The only nonpartisan investigation is the Special Counsel and Donald is threatening to shut it down because they are getting too close to his financial dealings with Russian oligarchs.

    You don't seem like a dumb person, but you obviously don't seem to want to find out if Donald colluded with a foreign power to hijack our democracy. We already know a foreign power interfered in our election in order to elect Donald, but the question is whether Donald helped them.

    Why do you not want to allow Mueller to figure out if he did?

  • Ray Pooch
    2018-03-20 05:16:00 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    I am a firm and unabashed believer in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, but Flynn's, Papadopoulos', and Gates' Constitutional rights don't seem to have been infringed here. They weren't victims of entrapment, but rather got caught lying to Federal officers.

    Nobody alleged entrapment. However, the crime is entrapment-like in the sense that there was no crime, in the case of Flynn and Papadopoulos, until the investigators started conducting interviews. As the article I linked to detailed (an article written after the Martha Stewart business, not written in defense of Trump) the FBI have numerous ways to get you to "lie". One way is to fail to reveal that they are FBI. Another is to come upon you unannounced, so that you don't have your story straight. I hear, but have not confirmed, that they did this to Flynn. Another is bully you so that you panic. Another is to lie to you, so that you lie as a way of making your story cohere with the FBI's.

    Frequently, the FBI is not charging you because your lie led to the Feds wasting their time with false information. On the contrary, they already *have* the information they are asking you about, and they are interviewing you *with the intention* of getting you to say something false. They will then use that to force you to cooperate in bringing someone else down.

    Ordinarily, liberals would have a problem with such methods. They are not the kind of techniques that lead to justice. Arthur Miller, who had not foreseen the rise of Trump when he wrote "The Crucible", warned us against a process in which people are successively coerced to testify against others in order to save their own skin. He used the analogy of the Salem witch trials, but he was of course referring to the rampant McCarthyism that was taking place at the time, which also had the feature that anyone who raised a protest against these methods was accused of carrying water for the Kremlin.

    Sound familiar? Look upthread.

    You may not like it, but that doesn't mean there's some vast FBI conspiracy to take down Donald's Administration.

    No, as the article I posted makes clear, the FBI standardly uses "lying to the FBI" as a way of coercing potential witnesses. It wasn't invented for Trump. What *is* new is the left's newfound appreciation for such frightening methods.

  • Ray Pooch
    2018-03-20 05:18:17 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Ray Pooch Wrote:It's the only crime they've been charged with.


    It's a sacred principle of liberalism that we should hold a man innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law. It's even more sacred, surely, that we should hold him innocent of the crimes of which he hasn't even been charged.

    That's because they made a plea deal!

    What did they plea down from?

  • Ray Pooch
    2018-03-20 05:38:01 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Republicans control all levers of our government

    And the justice department too.

    And the intelligence agencies report to Donald.

    The principal evidence that Russia interfered with the election is the intelligence agencies' say-so, acquired under Obama. If you accuse them of biasing their findings towards the man they report to, you're gonna cut off the branch you're sitting on.

    The only nonpartisan investigation is the Special Counsel

    For your example of the nonpartisan investigation, you are choosing the only investigation that is being performed by the Trump administration itself, led by the Republican appointed by the Republican that Trump himself appointed, and the only investigation that, according to your very post, Trump has the unilateral authority to shut down. So why decide that *this* is the one Republican investigation that is "nonpartisan"? Why not extend the same charity to the house investigations?

    Answer: Because they haven't returned the result you wanted.

    The only nonpartisan investigation is the Special Counsel and Donald is threatening to shut it down because they are getting too close to his financial dealings with Russian oligarchs.

    So, once again, the claim is that there isn't any evidence of a vast conspiracy between Trump and the Russian Federation to influence the US election, but that Trump perhaps engaged in shady real estate transactions with business people who happen to hail from Russia.

    You don't seem like a dumb person,

    'preciate it.

    but you obviously don't seem to want to find out if Donald colluded with a foreign power to hijack our democracy.

    Of course I want to find out. That's why I entered this thread by asking for hard evidence. Do you have any?

    We already know a foreign power interfered in our election in order to elect Donald,

    Weeell, okay. We know (I grant) that James "least untruthful" Clapper said as much, and had his agencies publish documents that said he was right. But no very compelling evidence of that is in the public domain, that I know of.

    Happy as always to be corrected.
  • wwjd
    2018-03-20 06:41:29 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Of course I want to find out. That's why I entered this thread by asking for hard evidence. Do you have any?

    What would you consider 'hard evidence' and what investigative sources would be acceptable and unacceptable?

    You seem to be suggesting Mueller is not the person for the job and\or better FBI investigator\team would have finished up after just a couple of months.

    I am open to the idea that Mueller may clear trump of all collusion with the Russians. My basic observation is that trump has no difficulty hiring and\or working with people that have no ethical boundaries. Win using all possible tools and methods; rules, laws, truth, honesty, ethics are for losers.

  • Ray Pooch
    2018-03-20 07:21:53 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:

    Of course I want to find out. That's why I entered this thread by asking for hard evidence. Do you have any?

    What would you consider 'hard evidence' and what investigative sources would be acceptable and unacceptable?

    Recordings of conversations. Emails. Texts. GPS coordinates from cell phones that put Trump (or those we can prove were representing him) at the same time and place as representatives of the Russian Federation. Eyewitnesses are suspect in such a politically fraught environment, but even eyewitness testimony would be better than what is currently in the public domain.

    Such evidence should be evidence of the allegation, not evidence of something related by a tortuous series of word associations. So if you claim that (1) Trump (2) colluded with the (3) Russian Federation in (4) 2016 to (5) illegally influence the (6) US election, don't back it up by showing that (1) Manafort (2) advised the (3) Ukrainian government in (4) 2006 on how to (5) campaign in the (6) Ukrainian election, but failed to report his income.

    You seem to be suggesting Mueller is not the person for the job and\or better FBI investigator\team would have finished up after just a couple of months.

    No. I am suggesting that, after this much time and resources have been thrown at this inquiry, without anything concrete to show to the public, people should start being skeptical that there is anything there to be found.

    I can agree that Trump *would* conspire with the Russians. However, it's a separate question whether the Russians would conspire with Trump. It seems quite something to claim (as the Steele dossier did) that the Russians groomed Trump, starting several years ago, to be the Manchurian Candidate who would, by infiltrating the very highest level of the government of the world's foremost military power, become the most successful covert operative in history, all while running his mouth on Twitter. You have to ask why the Russians chose Trump, of all people, for this delicate secret mission. Why not choose someone with political experience and pedigree? With connections and an understanding of how DC works? Why choose a real estate tycoon, reality show presenter and beauty contest impressario who once had a cameo in "Home Alone"? Was it because of Trump's famous discretion and self-control, his compulsive and irresponsible outbursts in person and on social media notwithstanding? Or was it merely because Carrot Top was unavailable?

    I am open to the idea that Mueller may clear trump of all collusion with the Russians. My basic observation is that trump has no difficulty hiring and\or working with people have no ethical boundaries. Win using all possible tools and methods; rules, laws, truth, honesty, ethics are for losers.

    Though, to be fair, that's a charge that could probably be leveled at any politician. Bill Clinton had all kind of unpleasant friends, some of whom he pardoned. Hillary's associations with Henry Kissinger are well known. Her open admiration for former Klan leader Robert Byrd was nauseating. Obama was unusually good in this respect, but still managed to surround himself with a number of dubious individuals from Wall St. It hardly needs to be argued that George W. Bush surrounded himself with the most awful people imaginable. I challenge you to find anyone in the Trump administration as catastrophically ghastly and geopolitically dangerous as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

  • Dockadams
    2018-03-21 04:41:11 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Ray Pooch Wrote:
    Dockadams Wrote:

    Well, only crime is lying is called perjury, which in and of itself is a crime.

    Just to be clear, perjury is lying under oath, after you have been summoned to the court room, had opportunity to consult counsel, and ample time to prepare your testimony. You can be charged with lying to the FBI even if they show up on your doorstep and don't even tell you they're the feds. It's a crime that has raised numerous objections on the basis that it is a threat to one's civil rights. When we're not desperately abandoning our principles in order to bring down the current President, it's the kind of authoritarian law we liberals protest.

    corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disput...

    The only person or persons who can bring trump and his presidency crashing down is trump himself, and his lying minions.
  • wwjd
    2018-03-21 05:03:04 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I can understand that its impossible for any politician at the national level to have some associations with less then perfect people. In the case of GWB, he did have several several very scary hardliners around him, but he wasn't a hardliner. I disagreed with nearly all of his politics, but as a human being, I perceived him as ethical and honest man who was dedicated to doing what he thought was best for the country. If he lived next door to me, we'd likely get along fine as neighbors just as long as we never discussed politics. As person, he was, and is, a decent person, but I would never vote him.

    With trump, I perceive him as having any no ethics and a person who is inherently dishonest as #1 personality trait; he loves to lie. Probably loves lying more than sex, maybe even more than winning. Whenever he makes a decision as president, his self interest always comes first 100% of the time, and he makes no compromises on his self interest. Anything issue that he can't profit by, doesn't interest him. ie Dreamers are SOL, they are are just a chip that he can use to get something that benefits him. If the can't get what he wants in the deal, their fucked.

    He is the stereotypical used car salesmen who loves it when a trusting couple walks into the lot (ie his base), because he knows he can sell them the worst car for maximum profit. When they come back a week later because the car had a major failure, he's already prepared to sell the second worst car on lot costing them even more money, giving them half of what they paid for the first car as a trade in. That is who he is, and it will never change.

  • Chet Ruminski
    2018-03-21 08:04:05 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Ray Pooch, So far it appears you are at odds with everybody that posted in this thread. You list your party affiliation as indepent which gives no indication whatsoever as to what your political bias is. A right wing conservative could use liberal and moderate comparatively describing positions on social, fiscal and foreign policies related to a conservative bias. Challenging hypothetical methods of the justice system, a long standing system that throughout the years has been modified significantly in favor of the defendant. If a person wants to avoid becoming a defendant in the justice system the choice remains with the defendant. As I have argued about concealed weapons for personal defense the best protection is to avoid areas potentially dangerous.
  • Schmidt
    2018-03-21 10:35:11 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    wwjd -- You are right on again. The only point I will add is that all of Trump's deficiencies that you outlined were know before he ever ran for president. He was an especially bad businessman and all the traits that made him a bad businessman have also made him the worst president ever.

    His one outstanding trait, however, is that he is the world's best con artist...perhaps the best that ever lived. Marco Rubio and others pointed that out quite truthfully in the Republican nomination process. Economists and business people wrote about his shitty business practices and how he stiffed his workers. He was just plain awful at everything. Yet he conned the media, Republicans, some Bernie Democrats, and some 63 million Americans. He deserves a gold medal in con artistry for that.

  • Dutch
    2018-03-21 10:50:02 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I guess the "heading" was about "black Friday"; however the B.S. roams freely. All these words in the last threads by this Pooch guy means nothing; I guess no one in the government cares about that. The simple truth is that it is "chaos" in this country, thanks to what I wrote many times about, that the Constitution as well all other laws or rules have created this mess. As long as people here don't realize that the voting laws should be drastically changed then the same shit will continue. First of all, get the "money" out of elections, secondly do "vet" a President (and all candidates) properly BEFORE any nomination. The "vetting" should include: Schooling (at least Higher education; preferably international), Mental health, Knowledge of the job, Stamina as well Moral values, World knowledge, Economics, Common sense attitude ,as well elect no "con-artist; as well a lot more. Just these two things will help.

    Furthermore make the Constitution an "living" document and "amend" or rewrite any section which does not reflect the 2018 world. As well add new sections which "cleary" describe what the "powers/limits" are of any President. ( like a "clear" job description as well write a clear termination clause (which should be black and white and not lawyer style with all kinds of "escapes built in) and make it "law") Delete the "second amendment" and write a new one to reflect that "assault" weapons are not made for hunting or other B.S. excuses and ban those. Etc. etc. Unless we want to continue as an super corrupt gun toting country; then you are welcome on the Titanic.

  • Dutch
    2018-03-21 11:11:58 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    wwjd -- You are right on again. The only point I will add is that all of Trump's deficiencies that you outlined were know before he ever ran for president. He was an especially bad businessman and all the traits that made him a bad businessman have also made him the worst president ever.

    His one outstanding trait, however, is that he is the world's best con artist...perhaps the best that ever lived. Marco Rubio and others pointed that out quite truthfully in the Republican nomination process. Economists and business people wrote about his shitty business practices and how he stiffed his workers. He was just plain awful at everything. Yet he conned the media, Republicans, some Bernie Democrats, and some 63 million Americans. He deserves a gold medal in con artistry for that.

    Yes Schmidt, all of this is a "self inflicted wound" as I said so many times.
  • TJ
    2018-03-21 11:24:23 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    On the news this morning was footage about the "advised against congratulatory" phone call. Said he congratulated him on his electoral victory........ Oy Vey. Everyone be silent. The Moron in chief is showing his extreme ignorance.

    In the rest of the world actual votes count in deciding the winner.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 61 - 75 of 177 Prev 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 .. 12 Next