Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: LesPalenik on February 09, 2020, 08:30:34 am
-
Suzanne Collins Republican Senator Susan Collins announced Tuesday she will vote to acquit President Trump in his Senate trial, telling CBS News she believes the president has learned a "pretty big lesson" from impeachment and will be "much more cautious".
What Trump learned that he can get away with anything. Well, not even Goebbels was as bold in manipulating the truth.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/7/21128317/nancy-pelosi-donald-trump-disinformation-policy-video-state-of-the-untion
A Facebook spokesperson told The Verge that the clip does not violate its new rules against deepfakes.A Twitter spokesperson noted that the platform’s most recent deepfakes policy does not go into effect until March, and declined to say whether it would apply to the video tweeted by Trump. YouTube said the reposts of the video did not violate the platform’s community guidelines.
-
That speech she ripped apart has the size of a telephone book... ;)
She had to start right away ripping or otherwise there was not enough time to complete..
Interesting montage...
gives the impression that she might be still there ripping and ripping...
-
...gives the impression that she might be still there ripping and ripping...
In her mind she probably still is ripping. She was center stage during the rip.
-
... Well, not even Goebbels was as bold in manipulating the truth...
There you go again, Les, another Nazi comparison :(
As for the video, Facebook got it right this time. Editing is done from actual footage for dramatic purposes. Like ominous music in films. For.Dramatic.Purposes.*
*just like this latest fashion of emphasising by separating a sentence into single words, with a full stop after each word.
-
There you go again, Les, another Nazi comparison :(
As for the video, Facebook got it right this time. Editing is done from actual footage for dramatic purposes. Like ominous music in films. For.Dramatic.Purposes.*
*just like this latest fashion of emphasising by separating a sentence into single words, with a full stop after each word.
They could make it even more dramatic with some VERY LOUD ripping sound.... all through the video
-
They could make it even more dramatic with some VERY LOUD ripping sound.... all through the video
Wagner instead? ;)
-
Wagner instead? ;)
The Liebestodt! ;D
-
You know, the Republicans are not the only ones who do this. A couple of weeks ago, Joe Biden put out an attack ad that showed Trump talking to I believe the UN. He said something along the lines that his administration achieved more then any other in the history of the country, and then showed the crowd laughing. This was followed up by Trump saying that he was not expecting that.
In reality though, only one or two people laughed after the first statement. Then Trump said that he did not expect that, and that is when the larger audience started laughing. The Biden campaign took the audio of the 2nd larger amount of laughter, that was obviously directed at Trump's jest he made at the one or two people laughing, and put it in after Trump's first statement to make it look like the entire audience was laughing at his first statement instead.
Here is a link to the video! (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/05/in_new_ad_joe_biden_says_the_world_is_laughing_at_donald_trump.html)
Now if you don't have a problem with this, you're being a hypocrite.
Now if you are wondering if I have a problem with either, well, politics is a blood sport.
-
As for the video, Facebook got it right this time. Editing is done from actual footage for dramatic purposes. Like ominous music in films. For.Dramatic.Purposes.*
You mean, it was just an example of a creative editing, using artists's freedom concept for the "corrected" footage version?
-
Trump is innocent in the same way that OJ Simpson is innocent.
-
What Trump learned that he can get away with anything. Well, not even Goebbels was as bold in manipulating the truth.
It's pretty unusual for Godwin's Law to be met by the first post in a thread, and any objective reader would consider the comparison to be beneath contempt; you undermine any valid point you might be able to make.
The next person to make hyperbolic Nazi comparisons in this or any other political thread will be banned.
Jeremy
-
It's pretty unusual for Godwin's Law to be met by the first post in a thread, and any objective reader would consider the comparison to be beneath contempt; you undermine any valid point you might be able to make.
The next person to make hyperbolic Nazi comparisons in this or any other political thread will be banned.
Jeremy
Jeremy - while I might not agree with the comparison of one in hindsight to the current outcome yet to be determined, and while I would definitely agree that what the current administration has done does not warrant a comparison to the Holocaust (or that anything the previous administration or current left-wing candidates propose equates to Stalinist), the comparison of the media manipulation, gaslighting, and disinformation to Goebbels' pre-war tactics is by no means "beneath contempt" on an academic level.
From Nicholas O'Shaugnessy (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1849043523/?creativeASIN=1849043523&linkCode=w61&imprToken=hlceTVCoBBSQFA-lQsKCmA&slotNum=0&tag=slatmaga-20), whose book was adapted into an excellent article on Slate (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/how-nazi-propaganda-encouraged-the-masses-to-co-produce-a-false-reality.html) that I would encourage everyone to read. Thing is, when the comparisons are exact, the chance to do anything about them will be long past.
According to Goebbels, what was distinctive about the Nazis was “the ability to see into the soul of the people and to speak the language of the man in the street.”19 The propagandist was an artist who “sensed the secret vibrations of the people.”20 What distinguished European fascism above all was its discovery of new ways, a methodology, of speaking to the working class. The fascists were not ashamed of mass media and marketing, understood the cultures of consumerism, and recognized the role these now played in the lives of the masses; media was a new language with which the masses were now familiar, including its styles, forms, and assumptions. Fascists were at ease in this exciting new world and recognized that it could be exploited for political purposes, both as a source of methods and as a new kind of culture with a different set of governing assumptions.
As I've stated before, this certainly isn't unique to Trump - it's a tactic used by all successful populist demagogues, but the simple fact that it's now being used by Trump does not lower the comparison to "beyond the pale," however controversial it might be to some to make the comparison.
-
Who gave Godwin divine right to write new tablets of stone?
:-)
-
Jeremy, I am aware of the sensitive use of my reference, and now I regret for using it. It was more the method and audacity of creating misleading information than correlating it to Nazis. I could have used a comparison to Walter Honecker in the East German regime or Brezhnev's agitators in Soviet Union, but their agitprop records and methods are not so well known.
Agitprop, abbreviated from Russian agitatsiya propaganda (agitation propaganda), political strategy in which the techniques of agitation and propaganda are used to influence and mobilize public opinion. Although the strategy is common, both the label and an obsession with it were specific to the Marxism practiced by communists in the Soviet Union.
Expanding on these notions in his pamphlet What Is to Be Done? (1902), Vladimir Lenin stated that the propagandist, whose primary medium is print, explains the causes of social inequities such as unemployment or hunger, while the agitator, whose primary medium is speech, seizes on the emotional aspects of these issues to arouse his audience to indignation or action. Agitation is thus the use of political slogans and half-truths to exploit the grievances of the public and thereby to mold public opinion and mobilize public support. Propaganda, by contrast, is the reasoned use of historical and scientific arguments to indoctrinate the educated and so-called “enlightened” members of society, such as party members.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/agitprop
-
Now this is gettin serious and out of hand.
I must protest in strongest terms the campaign by Les, James, Manoli et al to portray the current situation to the Nazi or Soviet propaganda methods.
That is incorrect, ridiculous, and contemptible.
-
Now this is gettin serious and out of hand.
I must protest in strongest terms the campaign by Les, James, Manoli et al to portray the current situation to the Nazi or Soviet propaganda methods.
That is incorrect, ridiculous, and contemptible.
Like most of the political centric posts in the Coffee Corner on a site that was once about photography. Easy to solve all this serious, out of hand ridiculous and contemptible behavior from all sides but the power’s to be, and many members here can’t fathom using LuLa forums to discuss all things Photography, (or coffee) which is AFAIK, the original aim of this site/forum. :'(
-
Like most of the political centric posts in the Coffee Corner on a site that was once about photography. Easy to solve all this serious, out of hand ridiculous and contemptible behavior from all sides but the power’s to be, and many members here can’t fathom using LuLa forums to discuss all things Photography, (or coffee) which is AFAIK, the original aim of this site/forum. :'(
There is some truth in your statement, Andrew
Actually, it would be far more valuable to know what editing tools Trump's video guys used for their creation. Final Cut Pro or Premiere Pro?
Perhaps even a short tutorial how to do it. Now that Facebook and Twitter endorsed it, there may be a lot of demand in the future for this type of reportage.
-
Now this is gettin serious and out of hand.
I must protest in strongest terms the campaign by Les, James, Manoli et al to portray the current situation to the Nazi or Soviet propaganda methods.
That is incorrect, ridiculous, and contemptible.
It's not, though.
Comparing the Trump administration to someone who would murder millions of Jews, or throw millions of dissidents into the gulags, or comparing Republican voters to brownshirts, would be exactly as you say.
Discussing the technical methods used by the various power structures to propagate lies is at least as fair as calling Democrats Stalinists.
Edit: All that said, though, I offer my sincere apologies and assurances that I am NOT equating anyone here to Hitler in any way, shape or form. But I would love if if some of y'all would read the article I linked to and let me know where the author's analogy fails, and why I shouldn't be concerned.
-
Like most of the political centric posts in the Coffee Corner on a site that was once about photography. Easy to solve all this serious, out of hand ridiculous and contemptible behavior from all sides but the power’s to be, and many members here can’t fathom using LuLa forums to discuss all things Photography, (or coffee) which is AFAIK, the original aim of this site/forum. :'(
But I hate coffee :(
-
... Discussing the technical methods used by the various power structures to propagate lies is at least as fair as calling Democrats Stalinists.
Ok, but there is no comparison in methods either. Today, there is no method, no theoretical underpinning, no apparatus to spread it. You et al are forgetting that both Nazis and Soviets were one-party systems with no opposition, and a vast government apparatus to spread and control propaganda. And harsh measures for dissent.
Today, you have 80% of the media against the President. You have the Congress against him. On the opposite side is just one man - one man - with his natural inclination for hyperbole and simplification. No theory behind it, no training. You think Trump read What is to be Done by comrade Lenin? Or any other propaganda manual? Or any other book, for that matter? As an aside, Obama did read his mentor's Rules for Radicals and applied it.
-
For the record, I deleted my post well before Slobodan’s #14 piece.
Neither the time nor the inclination ...
For Slobodan:
Economist: Feb 6th 2020, Lexington: Trump Unbound
“ ... Yet if his record were half as good as his defenders say, why does he misrepresent it so extremely? He claims endless things that are demonstrably false ... If his supporters were primarily drawn to Mr Trump by his record, they might be expected to discern the facts from the nonsense; most know he is not honest. Yet, for the sake of political argument at least, they seem to accept whatever he claims... “
Otherwise known as propaganda, relentlessly disseminated.
-
Today, there is no method, no theoretical underpinning, no apparatus to spread it.
Now, you’re taking the Michael ...
Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss?wprov=sfti1
-
Now this is gettin serious and out of hand.
Like most of the political centric posts in the Coffee Corner on a site that was once about photography. Easy to solve all this serious, out of hand ridiculous and contemptible behavior from all sides but the power’s to be, and many members here can’t fathom using LuLa forums to discuss all things Photography . . .
Well, of course that's one solution to the over-the-top arguments, but I think this thread―as well as other "tediously repetitive" political ones―serves a purpose by exposing some of us (I'm speaking for myself here) to opinions of individuals who we have come to respect in a technical context but whose views in other realms are quite different from ours.
I quite literally have no personal contact with Trump defenders: I spend most of my time in Maryland and the District of Columbia―not exactly Trump country. Nor, for that matter, with populists on the left who support Bernie Sanders. These both represent significant political constituencies in the United States. Or maybe one overlapping constituency, similar in their anger but with differing policy proposals. And what happens here affects the entire world, for better or worse―so I'm interested to read what people in other countries think; LuLa is an international forum. (Although I wish there was more representation from Latin America, Africa, and East and South Asia.)
So I would encourage Jeremy and the site maintainers to continue to enforce some level of decorum, mutual respect, and just plain sanity, while allowing the arguments to continue.
In a relatively few months, the situation here in the States will be resolved one way or the other. But the economic and social forces that have created the populist movements that are sweeping through so many industrial countries are not likely to disappear anytime soon―and, frankly, I find the debate about them here at least as enlightening as Canon v. Nikon or Fuji v. Sony.
-
Ok, but there is no comparison in methods either. Today, there is no method, no theoretical underpinning, no apparatus to spread it. You et al are forgetting that both Nazis and Soviets were one-party systems with no opposition, and a vast government apparatus to spread and control propaganda. And harsh measures for dissent.
Firing Alex Vindman for telling the truth, his brother for being Alex's brother, and vilifying Romney seems also harsh.
-
Jeremy - while I might not agree with the comparison of one in hindsight to the current outcome yet to be determined, and while I would definitely agree that what the current administration has done does not warrant a comparison to the Holocaust (or that anything the previous administration or current left-wing candidates propose equates to Stalinist), the comparison of the media manipulation, gaslighting, and disinformation to Goebbels' pre-war tactics is by no means "beneath contempt" on an academic level.
If there had been any analysis, I might be inclined to agree; but there wasn't. There was simply the usual "its just like the Nazis" allegation, which serves only to grant to one party the high moral ground (at least in his own eyes) and irredeemably to taint with fascism anyone arguing to the contrary. It aims to shut down debate. The brain-dead Left has been doing it in the UK for years. It's tiresome.
Jeremy, I am aware of the sensitive use of my reference, and now I regret for using it.
Thank you.
Jeremy
-
Firing Alex Vindman for telling the truth, his brother for being Alex's brother, and vilifying Romney seems also harsh.
You can’t be serious, Les. You of all people should have understood, without me explaining further, what harsh meant in Soviet times: gulag, Siberia, loss of life. None of that happened above. Not even remotely similar. Soldiers returned to their previous posts. Romney is still freely blabbering. The President has the right to choose his team. Which means hiring and firing. You can’t seriously expect him to work with a snitch and someone with a persuasion that his holy duty is to take down the President of the United States because he disagrees with him politically.
-
... So I would encourage Jeremy and the site maintainers to continue to enforce some level of decorum, mutual respect, and just plain sanity, while allowing the arguments to continue...
+1
P.S. I hope my post wasn’t understood as a request to shut down the thread or political debates, or to ban certain members. It was rather an appeal to our forum friends to refrain from such over-the-top rhetoric.
-
You can’t be serious, Les. You of all people should have understood, without me explaining further, what harsh meant in Soviet times: gulag, Siberia, loss of life. None of that happened above. Not even remotely similar. Soldiers returned to their previous posts. Romney is still freely blabbering. The President has the right to choose his team. Which means hiring and firing. You can’t seriously expect him to work with a snitch and someone with a persuasion that his holy duty is to take down the President of the United States because he disagrees with him politically.
We see it from a different angle, Slobodan. However, in contrast to the aforementioned individuals, we were able to express our opinions without any serious repercussions and that's a good thing.
I still think that editing that State Of Union video in a way they did it, was more unethical than cloning out a branch or can of Coke from a photo.
-
You can’t be serious, Les. You of all people should have understood, without me explaining further, what harsh meant in Soviet times: gulag, Siberia, loss of life. None of that happened above.
Amazing that someone with your experience doesn't recognize (or deliberately down-plays) the fact that things gradually get out of hand. We're not talking about a coup. It all starts with small steps/precedents, but once stepped on the slippery slope of moral/legal decline, things will gradually get worse, and the extreme examples that were referenced do not paint a happy perspective, certainly not a situation one would strive for.
The President has the right to choose his team. Which means hiring and firing.
Yes, and one would hope that those decisions are well-informed, and for the benefit of the USA. Not for personal gain.
You can’t seriously expect him to work with a snitch and someone with a persuasion that his holy duty is to take down the President of the United States because he disagrees with him politically.
Who are you referring to???
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who did his duty when he observed questionable behavior that put the safety of the USA at risk, or when he was called by Congress to testify?
His brother? A snitch? What on earth did he do wrong, other than being the brother of?
Ambassador Sondland, who was called by Congress to testify, and had to change his earlier untenable testimony to avoid the legal consequences?
Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had to abandon her post within a day, without knowing the reasons, and who was called by Congress to testify?
Chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, someone else?
-
If there had been any analysis, I might be inclined to agree; but there wasn't. There was simply the usual "its just like the Nazis" allegation, which serves only to grant to one party the high moral ground (at least in his own eyes) and irredeemably to taint with fascism anyone arguing to the contrary. It aims to shut down debate. The brain-dead Left has been doing it in the UK for years. It's tiresome
Jeremy
Et tu, Jeremy? ;)
-
+1
P.S. I hope my post wasn’t understood as a request to shut down the thread or political debates, or to ban certain members. It was rather an appeal to our forum friends to refrain from such over-the-top rhetoric.
Good. I'm glad we won't expect any more warnings about the muslim peril from you or references to a presidential candidates as Mary Buttplug? ;)
-
Which means hiring and firing. You can’t seriously expect him to work with a snitch and someone with a persuasion that his holy duty is to take down the President of the United States because he disagrees with him politically.
Snitch? What is this, the Mob?
The took an oath to the country and the constitution, not to Trump. Now I'll grant you that Trump can fire him if he wants to, but please stop boring us with silly spin.
-
Snitch? What is this, the Mob?
The took an oath to the country and the constitution, not to Trump. Now I'll grant you that Trump can fire him if he wants to, but please stop boring us with silly spin.
If snitch were changed to a disloyal Individual make it better?
Peter
-
What is this, the Mob?
Worse, Robert. It's a political party.
-
When an award is offered for information leading to the capture of a suspected criminal, it is generally granted only if and when the criminal is tried and convicted.
Trump was aquitted, hence no award (praise) should be granted to the informant. Meaning,, Alex Vindman is no whistleblower. He is a snitch spy leaker subversive saboteur traitor.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQGptzdXYAAFpSe.png)
-
If snitch were changed to a disloyal Individual make it better?
Disloyal to whom, or what?
The constitution, a coequal branch of government (Congress), US military interests, the people of the USA, etc.?
Or "le Roi c'est moi'' Trump?
-
When an award is offered for information leading to the capture of a suspected criminal, it is generally granted only if and when the criminal is tried and convicted.
Trump was aquitted, hence no award (praise) should be granted to the informant. Meaning,, Alex Vindman is no whistleblower. He is a snitch spy leaker subversive saboteur traitor.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQGptzdXYAAFpSe.png)
That's a bit of a stretch, I think. Did he fabricate evidence or did he just state what he heard or saw? If he was doing his duty then he is none of those things you stated. Your bias is showing.
-
Worse, Robert. It's a political party.
You make a good point.
-
That's a bit of a stretch, I think. Did he fabricate evidence or did he just state what he heard or saw?...
Nothing to fabricate, as there was no evidence... not even what he heard or saw, but just his opinion.
-
Nothing to fabricate, as there was no evidence... not even what he heard or saw, but just his opinion.
Huh, are you of the mistaken opinion that hearing Trump say what he did is hearsay, or something else?
-
Huh, are you of the mistaken opinion that hearing Trump say what he did is hearsay, or something else?
A transcript of the call has been released, so it is irrelevant what the guy thought he heard.
-
The next person to make hyperbolic Nazi comparisons in this or any other political thread will be banned.
Jeremy
Thanks, Jeremy!!!
-
+1
P.S. I hope my post wasn’t understood as a request to shut down the thread or political debates, or to ban certain members. It was rather an appeal to our forum friends to refrain from such over-the-top rhetoric.
Fankly, I thought you were joking.
How disappointing, then, to discover you were serious. Try green tea: I believe it calms people down.
Rob
-
A transcript of the call has been released, so it is irrelevant what the guy thought he heard.
That's something different from what you said. You said he fabricated evidence, that "there was no evidence... not even what he heard or saw, but just his opinion".
BTW, from what I've heard, the transcript that was released was not the full transcript. The witness heard the entire call as it took place.
Another thing that seems to be misunderstood, not necessarily by you, is what an 'acquittal' actually means.
According to the Cornell Law school's website (emphasis in the quoted text is mine):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/acquittal
Acquittal
Definition
At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent. Thus, a person may be acquitted of a crime but found civilly liable in a civil case regarding that same crime, e.g. O.J. Simpson, because civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal cases.
I repeat, "not that a defendant is innocent."
It's the failure of the Senate to prove Donald J. Trump innocent.
They didn't, because they couldn't, and they just didn't want to convict him, thus an acquittal.
-
A transcript of the call has been released, so it is irrelevant what the guy thought he heard.
I believe it was a partial summary and not a transcript.
-
I believe it was a partial summary and not a transcript.
Who cares what you believe?
-
Who cares what you believe?
You seemed to believe it was the full transcript. Nobody cares what you believe. The truth is known.
-
That's something different from what you said. You said he fabricated evidence...
How you've come to that conclusion is beyond me!? This is what I said:
Nothing to fabricate, as there was no evidence...
... It's the failure of the Senate to prove Donald J. Trump innocent...
Once again, for the millionth time, the role of the defense, in a trial or in the Senate, is not to prove innocence. It is a prosecutor's job to prove guilt. Even your own quote says so:
... a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt...
-
You seemed to believe it was the full transcript. Nobody cares what you believe. The truth is known.
What truth? Show me.
-
Once again, for the millionth time, the role of the defense, in a trial or in the Senate, is not to prove innocence. It is a prosecutor's job to prove guilt. Even your own quote says so:
Since when is the Senate the defense? The majority may have acted like they were, but that's not their role.
-
Who cares what you believe?
Certainly nobody I know. I dare say the same applies to everybody in these political discussions, including yourself.
-
What truth? Show me.
Show me the full transcript.
-
Certainly nobody I know. I dare say the same applies to everybody in these political discussions, including yourself.
Correct, although some contributions are more informative than others.
-
I believe it was a partial summary and not a transcript.
Correct. It was just a partial summary.
The White House has just released a partial readout — which it admits isn’t a full transcript — of a now infamous call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20883325/transcript-trump-ukraine-president-impeachment
Similar to the second version of the news after the Iran rocket attack, when the officials reported 11 cases of brain injuries (the first report didn't mention any injuries).
U.S. President Donald Trump appeared to play down the brain injuries last month, saying he “heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things” following the attack, prompting criticism from lawmakers and a U.S. veterans group.
Now it transpires that that was just a partial count. The latest report states over 100 affected soldiers.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-tbi-exclusive/exclusive-more-than-100-u-s-troops-diagnosed-with-brain-injuries-from-iran-attack-officials-idUSKBN2041ZK?il=0
-
That's a bit of a stretch, I think. Did he fabricate evidence or did he just state what he heard or saw? If he was doing his duty then he is none of those things you stated. Your bias is showing.
Was it his duty to first tell his brother and some yet unknown person (perhaps the whistleblower..which he was protected from stating by shifty Shiff)...BEFORE doing his duty and reporting his concerns to the proper person?
Does that make him a hero just doing his job or simply another snitch in the WH?
-
Correct. It was just a partial summary.
https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20883325/transcript-trump-ukraine-president-impeachment
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the hero Vindman tell the House investigation that the transcript was correct except for what he recalls as a single word was missing?
Similar to the second version of the news after the Iran rocket attack, when the officials reported 11 cases of brain injuries (the first report didn't mention any injuries).
Now it transpires that that was just a partial count. The latest report states over 100 affected soldiers.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-tbi-exclusive/exclusive-more-than-100-u-s-troops-diagnosed-with-brain-injuries-from-iran-attack-officials-idUSKBN2041ZK?il=0
Amazing, as additional facts become known the reporting reflects it. Do you have any idea how notorioulsy bad initial reporting of breaking news events can be?
-
If this thread can't rise above the childish bickering that has filled the last couple of pages, I'll close it. You are adults, not kindergarten pupils.
Jeremy
-
Since when is the Senate the defense?...
Come on, Bart, I know your English is better than what you are pretending here. Where did I say the Senate is the defense!?
I said:
... the role of the defense, in a trial or in the Senate, is not to prove innocence...
Trump had his lawyers providing defense IN the Senate.
-
Come on, Bart, I know your English is better than what you are pretending here. Where did I say the Senate is the defense!?
I said:
Trump had his lawyers providing defense IN the Senate.
If the Senate isn't the defense, and we seem to agree that it isn't, why haven't they heard more witnesses?
By not getting to the bottom of it, hearing witnesses who could clarify certain details, they acted as the defense (which is not their sworn duty), thus leaving enough (neither proven nor disproved) reasonable doubt not to be able to convict.
-
Good. I'm glad we won't expect any more warnings about the muslim peril from you or references to a presidential candidates as Mary Buttplug? ;)
My warnings are not over the top, they are factual.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security/british-man-guilty-of-plotting-islamist-attack-on-london-sights-idUSKBN20428F
As for Mary, blame it on auto-correct... as soon as I start typing Mayor Butt...whatever, it pops up as Mary Buttplug ;)
-
If there had been any analysis, I might be inclined to agree; but there wasn't. There was simply the usual "its just like the Nazis" allegation, which serves only to grant to one party the high moral ground (at least in his own eyes) and irredeemably to taint with fascism anyone arguing to the contrary. It aims to shut down debate. The brain-dead Left has been doing it in the UK for years. It's tiresome.
Thank you.
Jeremy
Thanks for you're reason for saying it. Your explanation was right on the mark. Tainting the other side with all kinds of demeaning hyperbole is regularly done here as sport. Frankly, I don;t think it's going to work. Independents get tired of it I believe and understand it for what it is - a lack of intelligence analysis of the facts and/or difficulty in coming up with honest opposition. It's easier to knock someone then to provide your own candidate who can get things done. It's hard to argue against success.
-
As for Mary, blame it on auto-correct... as soon as I start typing Mayor Butt...whatever, it pops up as Mary Buttplug ;)
That explains a lot! :)
-
Since when is the Senate the defense? The majority may have acted like they were, but that's not their role.
For the umpteenth time, the democrat controlled House impeached the President for political reasons and the Republican controlled Senate declared him not guilty for political reasons. It's got nothing to do with crimes or the constitution. I'm sure you must be "shocked, simply shocked" that these things happen in Washington DC. But I'm sure they go on on your government as well. It's just that most people just don't care about it.
-
Thanks for you're reason for saying it. Your explanation was right on the mark. Tainting the other side with all kinds of demeaning hyperbole is regularly done here as sport. Frankly, I don;t think it's going to work. Independents get tired of it I believe and understand it for what it is - a lack of intelligence analysis of the facts and/or difficulty in coming up with honest opposition. It's easier to knock someone then to provide your own candidate who can get things done. It's hard to argue against success.
Kind of depends on how you define success. From my viewpoint, accomplishing morally reprehensible goals is not success.
-
From my viewpoint, accomplishing morally reprehensible goals is not success.
Absolutely, Fab. So be very careful you don't get involved in accomplishing morally reprehensible goals.
-
Kind of depends on how you define success. From my viewpoint, accomplishing morally reprehensible goals is not success.
You said exactly what I said happens here. Just a smear to shut down debate. You didn't analyze some of the things he did like get rid of ISIS, pass a tax bill, re-do NAFTA to make it better, get discussions started with North Korea, and attempt to stop CHina from stealing trade secrets. How are these morally reprehensible? Even if you disagree with policy, that doesn;t by itself make the policy or the president immoral. Calling people names is just a lazy way of objecting to success. It shows little thought and lots of anger, but little deliberation and thought as well as no argument for anything else. Certainly you can do better. It would add to the discussion and give Jeremy more time to enjoy his tea.
-
Even if you disagree with policy, that doesn;t by itself make the policy or the president immoral. Calling people names is just a lazy way of objecting to success. It shows little thought and lots of anger, but little deliberation and thought as well as no argument for anything else. Certainly you can do better. It would add to the discussion and give Jeremy more time to enjoy his tea.
You are being paranoid. I was speaking generally, no about Trump.
-
[quote author=Alan Klein link=topic=133878.msg1hhEven if you disagree with policy, that doesn;t by itself make the policy or the president immoral. Calling people names is just a lazy way of objecting to success. It shows little thought and lots of anger, but little deliberation and thought as well as no argument for anything else. Certainly you can do better. It would add to the discussion and give Jeremy more time to enjoy his tea.
You are being paranoid. I was speaking generally, no about Trump.
I doubt that.
-
I doubt that.
That's just your paranoia talking.
-
You said exactly what I said happens here. Just a smear to shut down debate. You didn't analyze some of the things he did like get rid of ISIS, pass a tax bill, re-do NAFTA to make it better, get discussions started with North Korea, and attempt to stop CHina from stealing trade secrets. How are these morally reprehensible? Even if you disagree with policy, that doesn;t by itself make the policy or the president immoral. Calling people names is just a lazy way of objecting to success. It shows little thought and lots of anger, but little deliberation and thought as well as no argument for anything else. Certainly you can do better. It would add to the discussion and give Jeremy more time to enjoy his tea.
Without using any names, there is a big difference in comparing one historical person and another living person, and the methods they both used to accomplish their goals. Mixing up these two things shows indeed very little thought and lots of anger.
-
That's just your paranoia talking.
There you go again with ad hominem attacks. Can't you do better than resorting to name calling?
-
Trump has previously threatened military action against Iran if it were to target US personnel and bases, but he did not announce any military action, saying Iran's attack had caused no casualties. On January 9, he said "No Americans were harmed in last night's attack by the Iranian regime."
Now, one month later, Pentagon has admitted that 109 US soldiers in Iraq were diagnosed with brain injuries. That is a considerable damage. How will this change US response to the Iranian attack?
-
Trump has previously threatened military action against Iran if it were to target US personnel and bases, but he did not announce any military action, saying Iran's attack had caused no casualties. On January 9, he said "No Americans were harmed in last night's attack by the Iranian regime."
Now, one month later, Pentagon has admitted that 109 US soldiers in Iraq were diagnosed with brain injuries. That is a considerable damage. How will this change US response to the Iranian attack?
We're not going to war over it. Should we?
-
We're not going to war over it. Should we?
Maybe we should just follow this song and be done with it. I think Bolton would agree [/sarcasm]
Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u8_-tI3gHQ)
-
Going to war would be extreme, but originally Trump announced his plan for selective strikes.
Trump tweeted Saturday (Jan 4 2020) that the Pentagon had put together a list of 52 targets — one for each of the Americans held during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis — including ones “important to Iran & the Iranian culture” that the U.S. would strike if Iran responded aggressively to the drone strike assassination of Soleimani last Friday. On Sunday, the president doubled down on those threats in comments to reporters aboard Air Force One.
https://www.rollcall.com/2020/01/07/trumps-threat-to-bomb-iran-cultural-sites-is-personal-for-iraq-war-vets-in-congress/
-
That's just your paranoia talking.
Frank, that's unhelpful and just plain rude.
I'm tired of the bandwidth, and screen real estate, which is wasted in these forums by unnecessary and offensive one-liners, and my patience is at an end. I shall start banning people who can't behave.
Jeremy
-
Frank, that's unhelpful and just plain rude.
I'm tired of the bandwidth, and screen real estate, which is wasted in these forums by unnecessary and offensive one-liners, and my patience is at an end. I shall start banning people who can't behave.
Jeremy
Didn't somebody some time ago predicted that you would regret allowing political issues to be discussed here? I thought so. Time to reverse the reversal, eh?
-
Didn't somebody some time ago predicted that you would regret allowing political issues to be discussed here? I thought so. Time to reverse the reversal, eh?
That comment is not helpful, either.
-
Didn't somebody some time ago predicted that you would regret allowing political issues to be discussed here? I thought so. Time to reverse the reversal, eh?
No. What gives you the impression that I regret it?
That comment is not helpful, either.
True.
Jeremy
-
Maybe we should just follow this song and be done with it. I think Bolton would agree [/sarcasm]
Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u8_-tI3gHQ)
It looks like at least 8 Republican Senators shared the feeling that Trump may not just be rhetorical in his intentions against Iran.
If only that had had he bravery of opposing the big bully a few weeks ago... maybe some remorse?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It looks like at least 8 Republican Senators shared the feeling that Trump may not just be rhetorical in his intentions against Iran.
If only that had had he bravery of opposing the big bully a few weeks ago... maybe some remorse?
Cheers,
Bernard
Veto...another meaningless gesture. Kind of like the Democrats and impeachment.
-
Veto...another meaningless gesture. Kind of like the Democrats and impeachment.
Another example of un-democratic the executive is becoming in the US.
Wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the Congress and Senate and just be done with it? That would align appearances with the way things are actually managed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Another example of un-democratic the executive is becoming in the US.
Wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the Congress and Senate and just be done with it? That would align appearances with the way things are actually managed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Do you have a clue how are system even works? You post is beyond silly. It’s the absolute right of the president to veto any legislation that comes to his desk. Sheesh.
-
Another example of un-democratic the executive is becoming in the US.
Wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the Congress and Senate and just be done with it? That would align appearances with the way things are actually managed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe the army has to take over. John Kelly said at an event at Drew University on Wednesday that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman did the right thing when he raised concerns about President Donald Trump's call to the Ukrainian president in late July, according to a report in The Atlantic. John Kelly has also dismissed the U.S. president's unprecedented engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as futile, saying he had never believed North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons and Pyongyang had played the United States to its benefit.
Kelly said that when Vindman heard Trump telling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he wanted investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, he was guided by what the US military teaches -- that you report to your superiors actions which you believe to be wrong. The Atlantic reported that Kelly explained, "We teach them, 'Don't follow an illegal order. And if you're ever given one, you'll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss.'"
While Kelly's comments are the most wide-ranging public critique of the President and his policies by any of the generals who served in cabinet posts in the Trump administration, others have also spoken out. A leading retired four-star officer, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told ABC News in December 2018 that he found Trump to be both immoral and dishonest.
Five months earlier, Adm. William McRaven, the architect of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011, was even more blunt in the Washington Post, saying, "Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation."
Former national security adviser John Bolton defended his ex-colleague, former White House chief of staff John Kelly, after President Donald Trump belittled Kelly for comments backing an impeachment witness. "John Kelly is an honorable man," Bolton tweeted on Thursday. "John and I have disagreed at times, as is commonplace at senior government levels, but he has always served his country faithfully. Conservatives especially have a responsibility to reject baseless attacks upon him."
-
Maybe the army has to take over. John Kelly said at an event at Drew University on Wednesday that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman did the right thing when he raised concerns about President Donald Trump's call to the Ukrainian president in late July, according to a report in The Atlantic.
The problem is that Vindman did not do the right thing. Instead of taking it to his superior he stopped along the way and took it to his brother and the supposed whistleblower. Of course Kelly should have known that but was long fired when it happened and he was nowhere around.
-
Do you have a clue how are system even works? You post is beyond silly. It’s the absolute right of the president to veto any legislation that comes to his desk. Sheesh.
It certainly is his right to do so but that's not aligned with the democratic spirit, is it? Senators and Congressman are there to represent the voice of the people on subject matters. That's the reason why these 2 bodies vote.
Are you honestly comfortable with the president acting alone on such sensitive matters? Especially Trump who is known for now knowing the situations in depth due to him not listening to the briefings prepared for him?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Maybe the army has to take over. John Kelly said at an event at Drew University on Wednesday that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman did the right thing when he raised concerns about President Donald Trump's call to the Ukrainian president in late July, according to a report in The Atlantic. John Kelly has also dismissed the U.S. president's unprecedented engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as futile, saying he had never believed North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons and Pyongyang had played the United States to its benefit.
Yep, that is just the solution, stage a Coup d'Etat. I'm sure that would make everything better and not end of complete disaster. I mean, that is what history has taught us, right? ???
-
It certainly is his right to do so but that's not aligned with the democratic spirit, is it? Senators and Congressman are there to represent the voice of the people on subject matters. That's the reason why these 2 bodies vote.
Are you honestly comfortable with the president acting alone on such sensitive matters? Especially Trump who is known for now knowing the situations in depth due to him not listening to the briefings prepared for him?
Cheers,
Bernard
Come on now Bernard, this just shows a total lack of knowledge of how our system works.
The president has the right to veto any policy that gets through congress, and the congress has the right to overturn a presidential veto if it so chooses with a 2/3s majority.
-
It certainly is his right to do so but that's not aligned with the democratic spirit, is it? Senators and Congressman are there to represent the voice of the people on subject matters. That's the reason why these 2 bodies vote.
Are you honestly comfortable with the president acting alone on such sensitive matters? Especially Trump who is known for now knowing the situations in depth due to him not listening to the briefings prepared for him?
Cheers,
Bernard
It’s exactly in the democratic spirit. Three co-equal branches of government. Lest you forget the President is also there to represent the voice of the people...and was duly elected. Or do you think the Congress should just run things? You appear to be less that educated on how this system works...again
So far it looks like a Trump is doing just fine on “such sensitive matters”.
-
I see in the headlines that Barr is criticizing Trump's tweeting. I predict that Barr will be gone soon, like all the rest. Should we start a raffle on a departure date?
Trump is nothing if not consistent. Eventually, everyone around him quits or is fired except for his family who don't have the luxury of leaving.
I wonder if Barr's book will be as good as Bolton's. Maybe it's like Alan says, all these guys are just in it for the eventual book deal. It's all an elaborate ruse to do a book tour.
Who's next?
-
Maybe the army has to take over. John Kelly said at an event at Drew University on Wednesday that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman did the right thing when he raised concerns about President Donald Trump's call to the Ukrainian president in late July, according to a report in The Atlantic. John Kelly has also dismissed the U.S. president's unprecedented engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as futile, saying he had never believed North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons and Pyongyang had played the United States to its benefit.
Just what we need in America. Unelected generals taking over and deciding political and international matters on their own without elected civilian oversight. What would you do if we got one who didn't like Canada? :)
-
I see in the headlines that Barr is criticizing Trump's tweeting. I predict that Barr will be gone soon, like all the rest. Should we start a raffle on a departure date?
Trump is nothing if not consistent. Eventually, everyone around him quits or is fired except for his family who don't have the luxury of leaving.
I wonder if Barr's book will be as good as Bolton's. Maybe it's like Alan says, all these guys are just in it for the eventual book deal. It's all an elaborate ruse to do a book tour.
Who's next?
We pick our friends. Relatives we're stuck with. :)
-
It certainly is his right to do so but that's not aligned with the democratic spirit, is it? Senators and Congressman are there to represent the voice of the people on subject matters. That's the reason why these 2 bodies vote.
Are you honestly comfortable with the president acting alone on such sensitive matters? Especially Trump who is known for now knowing the situations in depth due to him not listening to the briefings prepared for him?
Cheers,
Bernard
I think your motives are OK. It's just that you going about it the wrong way. The US Constitution made it difficult for our presidents to go to war. It requires Congress to declare war. Over the years, however, Congress has forfeited its responsibility over to the executive branch. Maybe because they're intellectually lazy. Or probably because it's politically expedient to let presidents make the hard decisions of war and peace. Then when the sh!t hits the fan, they can blame him and claim they took the opposite position whichever way it goes if it goes badly. So over the years, they've given more and more decision making power to the president. Presidents like the power. That's why they want to be presidents. Once you give it to them, they don't want to give it up.
So now, when congress thinks maybe it went to far in giving the president too much power after 9-11, 19 years ago, they decided they want some of it back. So Trump will probably veto the legislation and they're not enough Senators to override the veto. Well, it's their fault they got themselves into this situation. Don't blame Trump or any previous president. Congress is made up of a bunch of cowards.
In any case, Trump doesn't want to go to war with Iran. That's why he passed on retaliating when they sent missiles to our bases and rattled our troops some what. He let it slide. War is the last thing he wants to do. Sure, he'll lob a few unmanned drones over there. But he won;t send troops which are required for a real war. It would mess up his re-election. Plus, he really is opposed to getting involved in wars. In 4 years he's lobbed a lot. But sent very few troops to actually fight.
Fortunately, he has our potential enemies so bamboozled, they don't know what he'll do so they're very cautious. That's why he yells a lot and acts crazy. It unhinges a lot of America's foreign enemies and his domestic political ones as well. So while everyone stays unhinged, they stay busy trying to psychoanalyze him when all he's doing is playing "bad cop", "good cop". First Kim is "rocket man". The Trump calls him a great leader. He does that with everyone. It's amazing the press hasn't noticed they're so psychotic with TDS. He's leading the entire world by their noses and nobody notices.
-
Just what we need in America. Unelected generals taking over and deciding political and international matters on their own without elected civilian oversight. What would you do if we got one who didn't like Canada? :)
I don't know what's worse - unelected or unqualified?
-
I don't know what's worse - unelected or unqualified?
We've had many unqualified presidents. I don;t think TRump is one of them. The economy is good. We're staying out of major wars? We are NOT looking for new foreign adventures.
In any case, unqualified is measurably better than unelected. But, what are you suggesting? Would a coup be better? A military junta?
In any case, presidents' powers are restrained by Congress and the Constitution. Especially unqualified ones of which we've had many, . How well did Johnson do with Vietnam? Kennedy nearly got us into WWIII with the Cuban missile crisis and his earlier Bay of Pigs embarrassing fiasco that led directly to the missiles crisis. Do you think Buttigieg has the experience to run America? Kobluchar? The same can be said about other countries. Do you think Boris Johnson is another Churchill? How about your guy?
-
We've had many unqualified presidents. I don;t think TRump is one of them. The economy is good. We're staying out of major wars? We are NOT looking for new foreign adventures.
In any case, unqualified is measurably better than unelected. But, what are you suggesting? Would a coup be better? A military junta?
In any case, presidents' powers are restrained by Congress and the Constitution. Especially unqualified ones of which we've had many, . How well did Johnson do with Vietnam? Kennedy nearly got us into WWIII with the Cuban missile crisis and his earlier Bay of Pigs embarrassing fiasco that led directly to the missiles crisis. Do you think Buttigieg has the experience to run America? Kobluchar? The same can be said about other countries. Do you think Boris Johnson is another Churchill? How about your guy?
I'm no advocating for a putsch, that could be interpreted as meddling in the affairs of a foreign country. But some military decisions should be left to the military.
-
I agree.
-
Just what we need in America. Unelected generals taking over and deciding political and international matters on their own without elected civilian oversight. What would you do if we got one who didn't like Canada? :)
Build a wall?
-
Build a wall?
:D
-
Build a wall?
why not a dome? ;)
-
Build a wall?
already started,
(https://cdn.whistler.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016%2f6%2fwhistler-snow-walls-hike.jpg)
-
already started,
(https://cdn.whistler.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016%2f6%2fwhistler-snow-walls-hike.jpg)
Wow, this turns me in favour of a wall !
What is this?
-
Made from genuine Canadian snow! Picture was taken in the summer on the West Coast at Whistler Mountain in British Columbia.
https://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/explore-the-resort/activities-and-events/summer-activities/peak-2-peak-360-experience/giant-snow-walls.aspx
-
Made from genuine Canadian snow! Picture was taken in the summer on the West Coast at Whistler Mountain in British Columbia.
If you order tickets now, México will pay for them.
-
Or Japan:
-
Here is a great video that I just happened along (purely by accident, I promise) that relates back to what Bernard repeatably asked over and over and over and over again in our previsou thread, namely if you are innocent why would you not just talk. Or in more plain words, only guilty men refuse to talk to the police.
Don't Talk to the Police (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
I guarantee that you'll find it interesting, and be surprised at just how easy it is for you to incriminate yourself even if you are truly innocent.
The most surprising thing I found out is that although any statement you make during a police interview can be use by a prosecutor to prove you are guilty, statements that you make during the same interview that would be exculpatory and help prove your innocence are considered hearsay and inadmissible (at least in VA).
-
Here is a great video that I just happened along (purely by accident, I promise) that relates back to what Bernard repeatably asked over and over and over and over again in our previsou thread, namely if you are innocent why would you not just talk. Or in more plain words, only guilty men refuse to talk to the police.
Don't Talk to the Police (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
I guarantee that you'll find it interesting, and be surprised at just how easy it is for you to incriminate yourself even if you are truly innocent.
The most surprising thing I found out is that although any statement you make during a police interview can be use by a prosecutor to prove you are guilty, statements that you make during the same interview that would be exculpatory and help prove your innocence are considered hearsay and inadmissible (at least in VA).
A defendant doesn;t have to prove his innocence. The state has to prove his guilt. The dependent already claimed his innocence to the judge. That's why there's a trial. What purpose would a recording claiming his innocence to a cop be? It also hearsay, because the defendant can testify his innocence (ie"I was out of state when the murder happened") if he wishes and be cross examined directly. His tape can;t be.
On the other hand, a tape recording of the defendant stating his guilt goes right to the evidence the state needs to prove his guilt. The cop who recorded the tape can be cross examined. And the defendant is always available to testify his statement about his guilt was tricked out of him or whatever, if he wishes.
I'm not a lawyer, only guessing at this.
-
A defendant doesn;t have to prove his innocence.
Correct, because as Joe's linked video demonstrates, one can incriminate oneself.
However, not exposing oneself to a legal process upfront(!), of digging for additional explanation of what went down and why or why not (!) thus contextualizing decisions of a public office, reeks of hiding relevant evidence. Especially when there's no evidence to clear one of the allegations.
-
... Especially when there's no evidence to clear one of the allegations.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
-
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Which would require cooperation of witnesses, which Trump blocked. What's there to hide?
-
Which would require cooperation of witnesses, which Trump blocked. What's there to hide?
The Latin phrase Slobodan gave sums it up pretty well. Why should a defendant provide witnesses if the prosecution never proved their claim. The burden is on those who make the claim of guilt. In the Trump case, it was political motivated for 3 1/2 years, long before Ukraine. EVeryone understood that except Trump haters and Democrats. The Democrats rushed through impeachment for political reasons then wanted the defendant to prove his innocence in the Senate when they did not provide evidence to prove his guilt. So the case went to the jury without the defense needing to provide testimony. Not Guilty.
Next.
-
The Democrats rushed through impeachment for political reasons then wanted the defendant to prove his innocence in the Senate when they did not provide evidence to prove his guilt. So the case went to the jury without the defense needing to provide testimony. Not Guilty.
Are you of the "he didn't do it" or the "he did it but it is not impeachable" school of thought?
-
[quote author=Alan Klein link=topic=133878.msg1152570#msg1152570 date=1581866139The Democrats rushed through impeachment for political reasons then wanted the defendant to prove his innocence in the Senate when they did not provide evidence to prove his guilt. So the case went to the jury without the defense needing to provide testimony. Not Guilty.
Are you of the "he didn't do it" or the "he did it but it is not impeachable" school of thought?
Are you from the school of thought that believes he may not have colluded with the Russians but he must be guilty of something we can impeach him over?
-
Are you from the school of thought that believes he may not have colluded with the Russians but he must be guilty of something we can impeach him over?
No. So, I'll ask again: are you of the "he didn't do it" or the "he did it but it is not impeachable" school of thought? If you would prefer not to answer, just say you would prefer not to answer. No problem.
-
No. So, I'll ask again: are you of the "he didn't do it" or the "he did it but it is not impeachable" school of thought? If you would prefer not to answer, just say you would prefer not to answer. No problem.
What he did was call for an legal investigation of a former government official who appears to have used his office illegally.
-
This is an interesting report on US infrastructure neglect (short video about 15 min) https://youtu.be/EdvJSGc14xA (https://youtu.be/EdvJSGc14xA), and looks at railway tunnels to New York and the delivery of goods along the waterways that lead to the Gulf Coast. The trouble from a politician's point of view is that this kind of project takes longer than a news cycle to resolve and in a short-term world with short-term thinkers, it's easy to put stuff off. Till the bridges fall anyway.
-
What he did was call for an legal investigation of a former government official who appears to have used his office illegally.
There was no investigation or reason for an investigation from the US justice department...
Trump personally pressured the Ukranian government to publicly announce that they would start an investigation into the Son of Biden.
He put pressure on the Ukanian government by withholding funds for the Ukranian defense, to force it.
-
There was no investigation or reason for an investigation from the US justice department...
Trump personally pressured the Ukranian government to publicly announce that they would start an investigation into the Son of Biden.
He put pressure on the Ukanian government by withholding funds for the Ukranian defense, to force it.
2 + 2 = 4. Wrong! Fake maths: ask any kid who blew the exams!
;-)
-
There was no investigation or reason for an investigation from the US justice department...
Trump personally pressured the Ukranian government to publicly announce that they would start an investigation into the Son of Biden.
He put pressure on the Ukanian government by withholding funds for the Ukranian defense, to force it.
The Justice Department is currently collecting evidence and preparing a decision on if it should do the investigation. Time will tell where it goes.
-
The Justice Department is currently collecting evidence and preparing a decision on if it should do the investigation. Time will tell where it goes.
Barr set up some sort of back door at the department of Justice to intake information about the Bidens and Ukraine gathered by Giuliani. My guess is we will hear nothing more about it since Biden is tanking in the polls.
-
...My guess is we will hear nothing more about it since Biden is tanking in the polls.
Trump is a gentleman, he won't beat the guy while he is down (yeah, right ;D )
-
Barr set up some sort of back door at the department of Justice to intake information about the Bidens and Ukraine gathered by Giuliani. My guess is we will hear nothing more about it since Biden is tanking in the polls.
The deep state is hard to fight. After all, Hillary broke the law twice in 2016 and she still has not been indicted.
-
The deep state is hard to fight. After all, Hillary broke the law twice in 2016 and she still has not been indicted.
Actually, no. She violated Department of State policy by using an unauthorized mail server for official communications. Employees of the State Department violated information security regulations by installing classified documents on an unclassified State Department network, and forwarding them to her account on the unauthorized server. Neither was in itself a crime. Creating or storing classified documents on the unclassified network was a regulatory violation punishable by administrative action, in egregious cases including suspension or dismissal. I’m not sure about the mail server; that’s an issue which never came up while I was responsible for information security during my tenure with the federal government. (I had access to both the classified and unclassified networks managed by the State Department, and worked with members of the Department’s IT staff.)
-
Actually, no. She violated Department of State policy by using an unauthorized mail server for official communications. Employees of the State Department violated information security regulations by installing classified documents on an unclassified State Department network, and forwarding them to her account on the unauthorized server. Neither was in itself a crime. Creating or storing classified documents on the unclassified network was a regulatory violation punishable by administrative action, in egregious cases including suspension or dismissal. I’m not sure about the mail server; that’s an issue which never came up while I was responsible for information security during my tenure with the federal government. (I had access to both the classified and unclassified networks managed by the State Department, and worked with members of the Department’s IT staff.)
Man, you guys are just way too easy; I was obviously being satirical.
Seriously, has the entirety of the left side of the isle completely lost its sense of humor?
Here is a modest proposal to help you discover your wit. (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm)
-
President Donald Trump has commuted the sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and pardoned others.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-to-commute-sentence-of-ex-gov-blagojevich-pardon-kerik
-
Trump pardoned a Democrat!? What a gentleman! ;)
-
Actually, no. She violated Department of State policy by using an unauthorized mail server for official communications. Employees of the State Department violated information security regulations by installing classified documents on an unclassified State Department network, and forwarding them to her account on the unauthorized server. Neither was in itself a crime. Creating or storing classified documents on the unclassified network was a regulatory violation punishable by administrative action, in egregious cases including suspension or dismissal. I’m not sure about the mail server; that’s an issue which never came up while I was responsible for information security during my tenure with the federal government. (I had access to both the classified and unclassified networks managed by the State Department, and worked with members of the Department’s IT staff.)
The discussion about sending classified material improperly and violating procedures for handling classified information was a fig leaf to cover up the real reason. Hillary Clinton used her private server to communicate with leaders and other foreigners about contributions to the Clinton Foundation and other payments that she wouldn't be able to hide if she used the State Department's classified server. It would belong to the government and those email would be memorialized in history.
Her argument that the 30,000 private emails she deleted were about recipes she discussed with in-laws and other such private stuff was a subterfuge. She needed her own server so she could scrub all the emails between the Clintons and the people who gave the Clintons money apparently in exchange for favors. The security aspect was just a distraction used to keep the focus off the real reason for the private servers. Unfortunately, the press wanted her to be president so went along with the subterfuge. They didn't do their job.
-
The discussion about sending classified material improperly and violating procedures for handling classified information was a fig leaf to cover up the real reason. Hillary Clinton used her private server to communicate with leaders and other foreigners about contributions to the Clinton Foundation and other payments that she wouldn't be able to hide if she used the State Department's classified server. It would belong to the government and those email would be memorialized in history.
Her argument that the 30,000 private emails she deleted were about recipes she discussed with in-laws and other such private stuff was a subterfuge. She needed her own server so she could scrub all the emails between the Clintons and the people who gave the Clintons money apparently in exchange for favors. The security aspect was just a distraction used to keep the focus off the real reason for the private servers. Unfortunately, the press wanted her to be president so went along with the subterfuge. They didn't do their job.
She cooks, too?
-
The discussion about sending classified material improperly and violating procedures for handling classified information was a fig leaf to cover up the real reason. Hillary Clinton used her private server to communicate with leaders and other foreigners about contributions to the Clinton Foundation and other payments that she wouldn't be able to hide if she used the State Department's classified server. It would belong to the government and those email would be memorialized in history.
Her argument that the 30,000 private emails she deleted were about recipes she discussed with in-laws and other such private stuff was a subterfuge. She needed her own server so she could scrub all the emails between the Clintons and the people who gave the Clintons money apparently in exchange for favors. The security aspect was just a distraction used to keep the focus off the real reason for the private servers. Unfortunately, the press wanted her to be president so went along with the subterfuge. They didn't do their job.
I have heard that theory before, but never seen any evidence to support it.
-
She cooks, too?
Yes. Apparently, when she was Secretary of State, she wiled away her time between Benghazi and Gaddafi cooking up Key Lime Pies for her grandchildren. Once she baked one of Bill's favorites when he was still in the White House, Baked Alaska. But it all was eaten by Monica Lewinsky. Apparently she had a taste for everything about the President.
-
I have heard that theory before, but never seen any evidence to support it.
Hillary deleted the evidence and scrubbed the computers. Duh.
-
She cooks, too?
I hear she makes the best Chocolate Suicide Brownies out there. So good, people are willing to die for them.
-
Hillary deleted the evidence and scrubbed the computers. Duh.
So how do you know?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So how do you know?
Cheers,
Bernard
Hillary admitted she deleted 30,000 "personal" emails. They were "bleached" deleted by some IT expert who then lied about it to Congress. Google it. You can find plenty of stories about it. Let's not fight this again. She lost 4 years ago. Let's move on.
-
Hillary admitted she deleted 30,000 "personal" emails. They were "bleached" deleted by some IT expert who then lied about it to Congress. Google it. You can find plenty of stories about it. Let's not fight this again. She lost 4 years ago. Let's move on.
How do you know these emails don't contain what she said they contained?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I hear she makes the best Chocolate Suicide Brownies out there. So good, people are willing to die for them.
That’s why I see Death by Chocolate cakes on restaurant menus! ;)
-
I hear a Hall & Oats song coming on.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DryAyljU4AAwmha.jpg)
-
How do you know these emails don't contain what she said they contained?
Cheers,
Bernard
We argued this 4 years ago. She lost. Proof enough. She's a crook like Biden.
-
Hillary deleted the evidence and scrubbed the computers. Duh.
That's right. It is coming back to me now. I also remember that she was communicating with extraterrestrials but those emails were deleted as well.
-
We argued this 4 years ago. She lost. Proof enough. She's a crook like Biden.
you are right- who brought this up?
-
How do you know these emails don't contain what she said they contained?
Cheers,
Bernard
Let me lay out the logic for you:
No matter what the evidence shows, Hillary is somehow guilty, and if evidence is missing it must be damning. No matter what the evidence shows, Trump is somehow innocent, and if evidence is missing it's absolutely wrong to assume it would be harmful.
-
Let me lay out the logic for you:
No matter what the evidence shows, Hillary is somehow guilty, and if evidence is missing it must be damning. No matter what the evidence shows, Trump is somehow innocent, and if evidence is missing it's absolutely wrong to assume it would be harmful.
Thanks for clearing that up. :)
-
No matter what the evidence shows, Hillary is somehow guilty, and if evidence is missing it must be damning. No matter what the evidence shows, Trump is somehow innocent, and if evidence is missing it's absolutely wrong to assume it would be harmful.
You’ve cracked the code!
-
Thanks for clearing that up. :)
Happy to be of service ;)
-
You’ve cracked the code!
Once I stopped trying to make sense of it, everything fell into place. ;)
-
Let me lay out the logic for you:
No matter what the evidence shows, Hillary is somehow guilty, and if evidence is missing it must be damning. No matter what the evidence shows, Trump is somehow innocent, and if evidence is missing it's absolutely wrong to assume it would be harmful.
Let me lay out the logic for you:
No matter what the evidence shows, Trump is somehow guilty, and if evidence is missing it must be damning. No matter what the evidence shows, Hillary is somehow innocent, and if evidence is missing it's absolutely wrong to assume it would be harmful.
-
In case it gets lost in the noise, Trump pardoned Michael Milken.
-
In case it gets lost in the noise, Trump pardoned Michael Milken.
He already spent time in jail for so long, that hardly anybody knows anymore who he is and what's he done.
-
He already spent time in jail for so long, that hardly anybody knows anymore who he is and what's he done.
let's release all prisoners we forgot about... ;)
-
let's release all prisoners we forgot about... ;)
If Bernie become president, you'll get your wish.
-
If Bernie become president, you'll get your wish.
Trump only releases old friends- we don't have to wait for that.
-
Trump only releases old friends- we don't have to wait for that.
Old friends like Alice Johnson? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtv_PJE8xns)
I still dont consider any of these worse then when the treasonist Private Manning was release.
-
Old friends like Alice Johnson? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtv_PJE8xns)
I still dont consider any of these worse then when the treasonist Private Manning was release.
talking about treason... and Manning...
wonder what is true of this statement...
Fitzgerald said a statement from another Assange lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, recounted "Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange ... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/lawyer-assange-offered-pardon-cleared-russia-200219200827583.html
-
Does it look like a whites-only support?
-
talking about treason... and Manning...
wonder what is true of this statement...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/lawyer-assange-offered-pardon-cleared-russia-200219200827583.html
Well sure, looks bad, but not treason, or at least not against the USA. You actually need to be a citizen for that, and Assange is not.
-
Does it look like whites-only support?
you are referring to ... what?
Not only white people can be as stupid to vote for trump is thats what you mean?
-
Are the Enron boys still locked up?
-
you are referring to ... what?
Not only white people can be as stupid to vote for trump is thats what you mean?
Going out of your way to help Trump I see.
-
Does it look like whites-only support?
Well, you got a token in the top shot.
-
you are referring to ... what?
Not only white people can be as stupid to vote for trump is thats what you mean?
You can't vote for anyone. We'll decide if you have to put up with another four years of Trump.
-
Trump only releases old friends...
And whites only - at least according to the loony left, like Chelsea Handler.
In fact, of the 11 on the pardoned and commuted list, there are three black women and one Latina.
So, in the interest of combating Fake News that are apparently reaching the Netherlands, here is the full list:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grants-clemency-2/
-
You can't vote for anyone. We'll decide if you have to put up with another four years of Trump.
You have done this several times on these pages, attempting to shut someone down by reason of their nationality. It is tiresome. These forum threads are for the voicing of opinions and discussion, and it is a Canadian hosted site besides. If you don't like the fact that non Americans voice their opinions about some things, you are going to have to get over it.
-
You have done this several times on these pages, attempting to shut someone down by reason of their nationality. It is tiresome. These forum threads are for the voicing of opinions and discussion, and it is a Canadian hosted site besides. If you don't like the fact that non Americans voice their opinions about some things, you are going to have to get over it.
Well, I'm voicing my opinion. The fact is you can squeal all you want about Trump but you don't get to vote against him. That's the point I'm making. The fact you're not an American means that what happens here has much less affect on you. Plus your rationale against Trump as a foreigner may be different than what Americans look at. Finally, if you don't like the fact that Americans voice their opinions about some things, you are going to have to get over it.
-
Well, I'm voicing my opinion. The fact is you can squeal all you want about Trump but you don't get to vote against him. That's the point I'm making. The fact you're not an American means that what happens here has much less affect on you. Plus your rationale against Trump as a foreigner may be different than what Americans look at. Finally, if you don't like the fact that Americans voice their opinions about some things, you are going to have to get over it.
No one, including me, has ever sought to stop you from giving your opinion, and you know it. Stop twisting other people's words.
-
Illustration for the "world hates Trump" narrative - Trump arrives to India:
-
Illustration for the "world hates Trump" narrative - Trump arrives to India:
The NY Times doesn;t even mention his trip on their front page this morning. The "fake news" press at it again.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/02/24/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf
-
Illustration for the "world hates Trump" narrative - Trump arrives to India:
There may be a handout in it, and freak shows are always interesting if you have nothing better to do with your time.
On the other hand, the crowds are bigger for cricket.
Rob
-
The NY Times doesn;t even mention his trip on their front page this morning. The "fake news" press at it again.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/02/24/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf
The New York Times has two stories with photographs of Trump's trip to India up on its digital site. Perhaps they were waiting for him to actually do something besides going for a ride in a plane before providing coverage.
-
The New York Times has two stories with photographs of Trump's trip to India up on its digital site. Perhaps they were waiting for him to actually do something besides going for a ride in a plane before providing coverage.
We'll see what happens with tomorrow's headlines in their actual newspaper. Digital is BS. In any case, I just looked on Google News. Not one article about the trip to India. So I checked Google World news. Same. No articles. MAybe it will change by the time your click it.
https://news.google.com/topics/CAAqJggKIiBDQkFTRWdvSUwyMHZNRGx1YlY4U0FtVnVHZ0pWVXlnQVAB?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
-
We'll see what happens with tomorrow's headlines in their actual newspaper. Digital is BS. In any case, I just looked on Google News. Not one article about the trip to India. So I checked Google World news. Same. No articles. MAybe it will change by the time your click it.
https://news.google.com/topics/CAAqJggKIiBDQkFTRWdvSUwyMHZNRGx1YlY4U0FtVnVHZ0pWVXlnQVAB?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
The digital version of the New York Times is just fine. Updated stories throughout the day. I clicked on your link and the second article shown was Trump and Melania's visit to the the Taj Mahal.
-
The digital version of the New York Times is just fine. Updated stories throughout the day. I clicked on your link and the second article shown was Trump and Melania's visit to the the Taj Mahal.
I'm still getting the digital Time articles although I had been cut off for awhile after a certain amount of articles. The Washington Post has cut me off completely. There's no way I'd send either money for a subscription. I use to read the actual NYT paper. Now I'll only buy it when I traveling by jet.
-
The digital version of the New York Times is just fine. Updated stories throughout the day. I clicked on your link and the second article shown was Trump and Melania's visit to the the Taj Mahal.
Funny about her: at the "biggest inauguration ever" she wore blue, I think, and looked a zillion dollars of class and style but today, in India, she wore what looked like a white jumpsuit - 'twas hard to tell - and the most terrible, unflattering, stand-out sash/belt you could imagine. Just shows you what can happen to you with prolonged exposure to the wrong influences...
Whilst T and M (the Indian M) were mutually self-congratulating, Delhi was burning with protests about the radical Hindu movement that is backing new legislation designed to disenfranchise thousands of Indian Moslems (anyone reminded of Israel here?) and the "Trump go home" placards were also out, but by the communists, this time. Did your US news services show you that? Did any of them tell you that Modi's party is the modern incarnation of the same one that spawned the guy who murdered Mahatma Gandhi?
Mr T made his speech about standing shoulder to shoulder with his new best friend - much as he described, at one time or another, China and NK as well as France, and managed both to knock Pakistan but still not enough to screw the little remaining connection he has with it. Oh, all of this at the same time as applying trade sanctions to India amid continuing arguments.
Truth is, such visits achieve two things: for both men, they distract from domestic issues at the right time (helps having about six million Indians living in the US) and also try to cement mutual fences against old new best friend China, which has its borders uncomfortably close to India, as has Pakistan, too. But India still has its own ties with China, so following that should beome labyrinthian as things progress. Funny how a leader, inexorably leading his country from being the worlds largest non-sectarian democracy into a theocracy, can be embraced like that by the supposedly greatest free country in the world.
There is nothing as crazy as politics.
-
Funny about her: at the "biggest inauguration ever" she wore blue, I think, and looked a zillion dollars of class and style but today, in India, she wore what looked like a white jumpsuit - 'twas hard to tell - and the most terrible, unflattering, stand-out sash/belt you could imagine. Just shows you what can happen to you with prolonged exposure to the wrong influences...
Whilst T and M (the Indian M) were mutually self-congratulating, Delhi was burning with protests about the radical Hindu movement that is backing new legislation designed to disenfranchise thousands of Indian Moslems (anyone reminded of Israel here?) and the "Trump go home" placards were also out, but by the communists, this time. Did your US news services show you that? Did any of them tell you that Modi's party is the modern incarnation of the same one that spawned the guy who murdered Mahatma Gandhi?
Mr T made his speech about standing shoulder to shoulder with his new best friend - much as he described, at one time or another, China and NK as well as France, and managed both to knock Pakistan but still not enough to screw the little remaining connection he has with it. Oh, all of this at the same time as applying trade sanctions to India amid continuing arguments.
Truth is, such visits achieve two things: for both men, they distract from domestic issues at the right time (helps having about six million Indians living in the US) and also try to cement mutual fences against old new best friend China, which has its borders uncomfortably close to India, as has Pakistan, too. But India still has its own ties with China, so following that should beome labyrinthian as things progress. Funny how a leader, inexorably leading his country from being the worlds largest non-sectarian democracy into a theocracy, can be embraced like that by the supposedly greatest free country in the world.
There is nothing as crazy as politics.
Rob, you don't know what you like. Previously, you complained that Trump is an isolationist, withdrawing America into a shell. So here he's reaching out, making friends and alliances with an important, large country who we may need as a counterpoint to an expansionist China. Yet you, as a Brit who should know better, complain about his actions as if American presidents haven't gone to all sorts of lands to try to make deals and alliances with nice leaders as well as contemptible ones. Should he not have visited North Korea because Kim is a murderer? How about Dictator for Life Xi in China?
You also complain that America butts its nose into the internal affairs of other countries. Yet here we are not doing that. Like a gorgeous woman who might not be too smart, we accept the good and ignore the bad. Well, with India, should we butt in? Or should we ignore and try for better relations with foreigners? You're all very confusing.
-
Like a gorgeous woman who might not be too smart, we accept the good and ignore the bad.
Are we thinking about the same woman?
-
Are we thinking about the same woman?
Let's be generous. I was being rhetorical.
-
We'll see what happens with tomorrow's headlines in their actual newspaper. Digital is BS. In any case, I just looked on Google News. Not one article about the trip to India. So I checked Google World news. Same. No articles. MAybe it will change by the time your click it.
https://news.google.com/topics/CAAqJggKIiBDQkFTRWdvSUwyMHZNRGx1YlY4U0FtVnVHZ0pWVXlnQVAB?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Reuters just published an article describing death and injuries connected with Trump's visit.
A policeman was killed and dozens of people injured amid clashes in New Delhi on Monday as thousands demonstrating for and against a new citizenship law rioted for several hours before U.S. President Donald Trump’s maiden visit to the city.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-citizenship-protests/one-killed-dozens-injured-in-delhi-clashes-as-trump-visits-idUSKCN20I0XE?il=0
-
Reuters just published an article describing death and injuries connected with Trump's visit.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-citizenship-protests/one-killed-dozens-injured-in-delhi-clashes-as-trump-visits-idUSKCN20I0XE?il=0
What's your point?
-
What's your point?
Alan, I just responded to your post where you complain about no articles about Trump's India visit. I'm sure more articles will follow.
-
Alan, I just responded to your post where you complain about no articles about Trump's India visit. I'm sure more articles will follow.
That was a Reuters article. The anti-Trump NY Times will wait for news that is bad for Trump. Then they'll put it on Page 1. Don't you know the drill yet?
-
That was a Reuters article. The anti-Trump NY Times will wait for news that is bad for Trump. Then they'll put it on Page 1. Don't you know the drill yet?
Usually, I read the articles in the chronological order, as they arrive to my computer. Here is one from earlier today, but there seems to be something wrong with the pictures, since Trump looks there better than Melania.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/02/24/14/25119756-8036815-Donald_and_Melania_Trump_stopped_by_the_Taj_Mahal_to_cap_off_the-a-80_1582555453964.jpg)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8036815/Crowds-line-greet-Donald-Melania-Trump-couple-touches-India.html
-
Link is missing.
-
sorry for the omission and thanks for letting me know. I added it now to my previous post.
-
Usually, I read the articles in the chronological order, as they arrive to my computer. Here is one from earlier today, but there seems to be something wrong with the pictures, since Trump looks there better than Melania.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/02/24/14/25119756-8036815-Donald_and_Melania_Trump_stopped_by_the_Taj_Mahal_to_cap_off_the-a-80_1582555453964.jpg)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8036815/Crowds-line-greet-Donald-Melania-Trump-couple-touches-India.html
Well Donald looks better than Melania because she just told him that she changed her mind. That she really doesn;t want the Taj Mahal.
-
Modi was even more pleased then Trump although he's not in the picture to see his wide smile. He thought he'd have to give the Taj Mahal to the president as a payoff for American support. Meanwhile, Trump's lawyers were the happiest of all. They could stop whispering admonitions in the president's ear, "Emoluments. Emoluments"
-
On the other hand, the crowds are bigger for cricket.
Rob
Even when England plays...! ;D
-
Usually, I read the articles in the chronological order, as they arrive to my computer. Here is one from earlier today, but there seems to be something wrong with the pictures, since Trump looks there better than Melania.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/02/24/14/25119756-8036815-Donald_and_Melania_Trump_stopped_by_the_Taj_Mahal_to_cap_off_the-a-80_1582555453964.jpg)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8036815/Crowds-line-greet-Donald-Melania-Trump-couple-touches-India.html
You see? What did I tell you about that sash/belt thing?
Trying to call up memories of Britain's colonial past as well as Rajasthan motifs doesn't always work for people too far removed.
Some things London does better than Hollywood.
;-)
-
The NY Times doesn;t even mention his trip on their front page this morning. The "fake news" press at it again.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/02/24/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf
Well, the NY times put a nice picture today on the front page. But left the written story to page 4.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/02/25/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf
-
There is a recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast "How much does the President matter?" https://freakonomics.com/podcast/president-matter-redux/ (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/president-matter-redux/). They first asked the same question ten years ago and are revisiting the subject. It's sort of a snapshot of the current state of the US presidency and its relationships with other branches of government. Trump is mentioned, of course, as are other presidents, but the episode is not primarily about him, a welcome relief.
-
Another legislative win for our dear Leader:
"Court hands Trump win in sanctuary city fight, says administration can deny grant money"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-hands-trump-win-in-sanctuary-city-grant
Trump is too gentle. I would nuke them.
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-under-probe-in-ukraine-for-alleged-link-to-top-prosecutors-2016-ouster-report
The Ukrainian probe was launched in response to a court order, after the ousted prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, made an appeal for action in the matter, Shokin’s attorney, Oleksandr Teleshetsky, told The Washington Post.
And for the fair and balanced sake, here is Washington Post too:
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB10ueCF?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
-
A US Appellate Court just ruled that in effect one of the two articles of impeachment were invalid. The Article claimed that Trump was obstructing Congress by ordering his people not to answer the COngressional subpoena and testify before Congress. Of course, COngress jumped the gun with that article because you normally wait to see what the courts say. Well, the courts have spoken and ruled the subpoena unenforceable. Trump did not have to comply with them. Trump did nothing wrong yet was impeached for it.
Congress Cannot Sue to Enforce Subpoenas Defied by Executive Branch, Appeals Court Rules
An appeals court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against President Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/mcgahn-subpoena-trump.html
-
A US Appellate Court just ruled that in effect one of the two articles of impeachment were invalid. The Article claimed that Trump was obstructing Congress by ordering his people not to answer the COngressional subpoena and testify before Congress. Of course, COngress jumped the gun with that article because you normally wait to see what the courts say. Well, the courts have spoken and ruled the subpoena unenforceable. Trump did not have to comply with them. Trump did nothing wrong yet was impeached for it.
This is exactly the opposite of what the appellate court said. The essence of the court's ruling is that the judiciary is not constitutionally authorized to decide these disputes between the two political branches of the government. The majority opinion holds that the U.S. Constitution contemplates that these political conflicts will be resolved through political mechanisms, including impeachment―not by "dragging judges into the fray."
The absence of a judicial remedy doesn’t render Congress powerless. Instead, the Constitution gives Congress a series of political tools to bring the Executive Branch to heel. . . . Congress (or one of its chambers) may hold officers in contempt, withhold appropriations, refuse to confirm the President’s nominees, harness public opinion, delay or derail the President’s legislative agenda, or impeach recalcitrant officers. . . . And Congress can wield these political weapons without dragging judges into the fray.
[Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn, II (citations omitted).]
-
This is exactly the opposite of what the appellate court said. The essence of the court's ruling is that the judiciary is not constitutionally authorized to decide these disputes between the two political branches of the government. The majority opinion holds that the U.S. Constitution contemplates that these political conflicts will be resolved through political mechanisms, including impeachment―not by "dragging judges into the fray."
I disagree. Congress weaponized the subpoena and impeached a President without waiting for the courts to weigh in whether the president was allowed to ignore their subpoena in the first place. If the court decided differently that the president should have responded to the subpoena, then the article of impeachment that the president obstructed congress would have been more valid. But that's not what the court decided.
The president did not violate any constitutional laws by refusing to respond to subpoenas. In fact the article goes on to worry that because of this decision, future presidents will just ignore congressional subpoenas out of hand with impunity. Because of this ruling, Congress will have less moral or legal justification to impeach when Presidents ignore their subpoenas, not more. Presidents will point to this decision and tell Congress their subpoenas have no authority with the executive branch. When presidents do that, what argument would Congress give for impeachment when president are now not legally bound to respond to Congress? The Appellate court has taken all the wind out of Congress sails. Negotiation and threat does not have the same power as having the law and the courts behind you.
-
... what argument would Congress give for impeachment when president are now not legally bound to respond to Congress?...
No argument needed, they can still impeach him. Or arrest anyone who ignores a subpoena.
-
No argument needed, they can still impeach him. Or arrest anyone who ignores a subpoena.
Sure, that's what they just did. But in the long run, the people aren't going to stand for Congress impeaching a president every time there's a dispute between co-equal branches of government. The court just said, work it out; just keep us out of it. From a Congressional point of view, they would be happier if the court agree the president's men had to respond to the subpoena. Then if the president stopped them, Congress would have a strong rationale for impeachment. Now it's, meh!
-
A little on the light side. Twenty year old article and photo shows Melania's appreciation to FDNY after 9-11.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/28/melania-trump-kisses-firefighter-in-unearthed-new-york-cover/
-
I disagree. Congress weaponized the subpoena and impeached a President without waiting for the courts to weigh in whether the president was allowed to ignore their subpoena in the first place. If the court decided differently that the president should have responded to the subpoena, then the article of impeachment that the president obstructed congress would have been more valid. But that's not what the court decided.
I wonder how Trump supporters would have reacted if this court ruling had been with respect to a Republican committee issuing subpoenas to employees of a Hilary Clinton administration because you know what comes around goes around.
-
I wonder how Trump supporters would have reacted if this court ruling had been with respect to a Republican committee issuing subpoenas to employees of a Hilary Clinton administration because you know what comes around goes around.
You're absolutely right, Frank. This argument is a constant between all congresses and all presidents, Democrat and Republican. That's why it isn;t an impeachable "offense" when both sides fight about it. It's why the appellate court refused to get involved like parents breaking up a fight between their two children :)
It's up to the two branches to resolve disputes when each side steps on the toes of the other side. But Congress using its impeachment power is a bridge too far. These disputes are not treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, just political arguments. You don't burn your house down because you're fighting with your spouse.
-
Just a comment about the two co-equal branches fighting about stuff.
This is exactly what the founders of our republican and constitution wanted. That's why they set it up the way they did. They didn't want too much power in the government. So they set it up so there would be these kind of disputes, not like what happens in a parliament where the PM and the members in charge are all from the same party. Having opposite parties in control of the presidency and legislative (congress) is good for freedom and reduces government power. People who argue that blocks legislation are missing the point. That's good. It helps slow down stupid legislation like Obamacare where the people lose their liberty. The more they argue, the better it is for the country. Of course, hopefully, in a real crisis, like war, or coronavirus, everyone comes together. But with this other stuff, let them fight. It's good for the people.
-
I haven't read the text of the opinion yet, so I will not go overboard, but it seems to me that under this ruling Nixon wouldn't have been required to turn over the Watergate tapes. I'm not sure that would have been the best result, but some Republicans may differ. By the way, I am sure that since this was a 2-1 decision before a three judge panel, Congress will file a motion for rehearing before all the judges of the D.C. Circuit, and that the loser will appeal it to the Supreme Court. I don't think we have heard the last of this.
-
I haven't read the text of the opinion yet, so I will not go overboard, but it seems to me that under this ruling Nixon wouldn't have been required to turn over the Watergate tapes. I'm not sure that would have been the best result, but some Republicans may differ.
I don't recall all the particulars. But I think there was a Special Prosecutor involved unlike in the situation we're discussing when the Congress wants to speak with people who work for the Executive. The Executive Branch (the president) does not report to the Congress anymore than the Congress reports to the President. Each is equal. Sort of like the relation between husbands and wives. :)
-
I haven't read the text of the opinion yet, so I will not go overboard, but it seems to me that under this ruling Nixon wouldn't have been required to turn over the Watergate tapes.
This case and United States v. Nixon (1974) are easily distinguishable. In Nixon, the subpoenas were issued pursuant to a criminal investigation, over which the judiciary had unquestioned authority. Nixon's claim that he was not required to comply was based on a specific theory of "executive privilege" rather than a blanket refusal to cooperate. Also, the dispute wasn't between Congress and the president, but between an executive branch prosecutor and the president.
If you would like to read the court of appeals opinion, it's available here (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf).
By the way, I am sure that since this was a 2-1 decision before a three judge panel, Congress will file a motion for rehearing before all the judges of the D.C. Circuit, and that the loser will appeal it to the Supreme Court. I don't think we have heard the last of this.
Correct on both counts: it was a 2-1 decision and there was even some disagreement (not relevant here) between the two judges in the majority. The next step, should the House of Representatives decide to proceed with the litigation, would be an en banc hearing before the court of appeals. And, of course, the losing party at that level could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.
-
What's interesting is the judge in the tax case regarding Trump where Congress has subpoenaed his tax records from the IRS has set a date for hearing in the tax case now that the Appeals Court ruled. My initial reaction was that he may use the argument the court can't get involved in disputes between the two branches and quash the Congressional subpoena. What do you think, Chris?