Holy hell. Nothing like cancelling a meeting with the chairman of foreign affairs ® Bob Corker, as he is waiting IN THE WHITE HOUSE, to discuss the decision on Syria.
I'll start with my continuing statement: both "main" parties are treasonous s**t, have been for more than my lifetime, and I truly wish that otherwise-functional people would quit feeding them.
A far as the latest allegations...I foresee stalls, blocks, and references to dozens or hundreds of other schemes that preceded Trump's which catapulted other politicians to power. One constant problem for the politicians NOT dusted with orange "cheez" is that our loudmouth assclown president is blatant about things that the rest have also done, but worked to hide. It's known by essentially everyone that follows the news that our "representatives" are taking in many times their official earnings via legislation that acts in their interests, which actually makes them vulnerable to a blowhard that's happy to point out the hypocrisy of so many of his detractors. Given that the media is as divided over him (yet absolutely chuffed at the clickbait he provides), I see this possibly playing out more in media "investigations" of all involved than whatever droning babble gets onto C-SPAN.
Can one Trump supporter defend this? Forget the fact Trump promised he would have ISIS wiped out in 30 days because he knew more than all his generals .... but Lindsey Graham slammed him today saying "It would be an Obama-like mistake" to pull out. "With all due respect, ISIS is not defeated in Syria, Iraq, and after just returning from visiting there--certainly not Afghanistan." None of the other Republicans support this, the military doesn't support it ... but you know who does?
RUSSIA.
When are some of you going to wake up to the fact our POTUS is more than just a bumbling, lying piece of shit - he is legitimately a national security threat? Can any of you do simple math and look at the big picture? Why the fuck do we bail out of Syria, leave ISIS alone, and hand control over to Russia which is exactly what they want? How does this protect USA?
If there's ANY explanation for this move other than Putin owns Trump, I'm dying to hear it. Our President is compromised people - wake up to the fact his own Director of the NSA was just blasted by a judge for "selling out his country" ... and Flynn hasn't done a fraction of the mess Trump is creating at home and globally. And spineless Republicans continue to tweet their displeasure, and do nothing. Republicans would rather risk the security of the country and our democratic institutions to protect their precious base of conspiracy-theory loving voters who can't wait to nail Hillary over some fucking emails. What an utterly treasonous fucking disgrace.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
First of all, people called Bush a "murderer". That's hardly a "policy" debate.
As for being angry, I would probably be thrilled to join with you in your criticisms of Trump- if not for the obvious, blatant bias against EVERYTHING that the guy does. In those times when he's done THE EXACT SAME THING AS OBAMA, "you guys" jump all over Trump, yet gave Obama a complete pass- and sometimes even praised him for it. THAT'S what has driven me to (at times) defend Trump (although I think you'd have to look hard to find much praise of him from me). If "the Left" was even REMOTELY intellectually honest in their criticisms, I could easily join with them. But since the vast majority of their criticisms are borne out tribal cult-like unity, I cannot join them. They aren't honest- even if they are (at times) correct.
PS: John McCain was NEVER a staunch conservative.
Oh come on, that's a ridiculous generalization and you know it. I never once called Bush a "murderer," nor do I know anyone who has. Can't think of a single member of congress who did either. So all you're doing is drawing an extreme, caricatured position and arguing against it. It would be like me bringing in the hundreds of racists signs used at Tea Party rallies to characterize your views toward Obama.
Think about the language you use. "The left" this, "the left" that. I think you're listening to too much AM radio.
You mention Trump doing the "same thing" as Obama. I've heard this quite a lot actually. I'm curious what you mean by that, because every single time I see someone say that (typically among my conservative family members on Facebook), you look into the issue and discover that there are key, fundamental differences in the policy that they're just ignoring to make a point.
Hopefully I'll have time to get back to this later. Not sure if it'll make any difference...
But since you asked, here's a whole book devoted to Bush being called a "murderer".
https://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-Georg...159315481X
Wow, a whole book. And so because Vincent Bugliosi thought the Iraq war was a criminal action, and you deem that opinion to be partisan nonsense, it follows, then, that every criticism of Very Stable Genius is also partisan nonsense. My goodness, Pumpf, that's such a ridiculous stretch you better sit down before you pull something :-)
See? This is the problem with trying to have a rational discussion with you (when it comes to politics). You assert that you don't know anyone who called Bush a murderer; I know for a fact that many liberals did (but didn't take the time to cite the all), and offer an actual book with that very same assertion... and you blow it off. Tell me, why should I even try to have a discussion with you when you ask for "proof" of something, get it... and then blow it off? How am I supposed to think that we're capable of having an intelligent discussion about ANY topic, if you are going to reject any comment that goes against your already held beliefs? That's why these discussions are pointless. It's not just that people refuse to even try to be reasonable; it's that they are unwilling to admit that it's NEVER about the actions / policies. It's ALWAYS about WHO is the one doing them.
I don't use whataboutism when it comes to Trump, because I have no interest in trying to defend his personality or past. But it is VERY telling to me that character only matters when Republicans are the ones lacking in it. Same thing applies to crimes they commit and stupid things they say. When liberals politicians do any of the same things, there is nary a word said about it. And, yes: I could cite multiple examples of Obama doing things that liberals have criticized Trump for. But, as you have already proven: what's the point? You won't admit it. You'll blow it off... or find some loophole to "prove" how Obama's actions were justified, while Trumps were criminal. So, as I should've done in the first place, I'm going to let you guys have your echo chamber. Enjoy.
I admit as someone who does lean liberal even though I've voted independent most always going back to John Anderson in 1980. I was very disturbed by the "war crimes" talk. I didn't like how the war was politicised by either side. That era really took us down a dark path. More then one. They decided to separate us more then we were. Choosing to make us fight each other more then watch their actions. The whole notion If you disagree you are un- American. Freedom fries and all the rest. Pick a side you want to be...with us or against us. That was a Bush speach. To the world really. Then the war was sold as immediate need or else. Fight them there before we fight them here. Iraq wasn't even the ones that attacked us. The war at home was on us. I feel the freedoms taken in the name of fighting for our freedom was to high. Bush was no friend of freedom. He was not a murderer either. The powers used an opportunity to exploit fears. That is my problem with that era. Not unprecedented in our history but a very recent one. So they call him a murderer and a war criminal out of anger. He was just a freedom fighter maybe. Seems he defeated our freedom in his fight. The war itself only created chaos and a void filled by the very people we should have been fighting all along. Then spread to neighboring countries. I guess it's over now according to Don.
Be careful about separating power. Separation went farther then either side could control. That's how you end up with somebody like Trump.
Ps: none of my rants are directed at those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you for your service.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ VikingOracle said:
As for Alan Dershowitz, I may be the only person on this board who actually has met Prof Dershowitz. As a law clerk in Boston, I worked on Tison v. Arizona and I sat next to Prof. Dershowitz' brother when he argued the case in front of the US Supreme Court (it was interesting watching him and Scalia "engage"). Dershowitz has a defense lawyer mentality through and through. He interprets everything in the most positive manner for defendants (whether they are his clients or not). Much smarter than Giuliani but comes towards any criminal issue from a defense attorney mentality.
I've never met Dershowitz, but I was a big fan of his in the 80s. Back then, I fancied myself a potential defense attorney, albeit working for Amnesty International or the ACLU. Got my undergrad in English since it was considered the best prep for law school. Then life happened.
Something happened to Dershowitz, too, it seems. I think his public "defense" default posture distorts his objectivity at times. I wonder if he's not just a contrarian more than anything else. And his "Israel is always right" mentality bugs me a little, too. Though I will admit that he has made me look at certain things closer. No doubt, he's an interesting cat.
I was hardly worth his notice when I worked on the Tison case (summer associate with 4 real H&D attorneys working on the case) but he has a very quick mind. Watching him and Scalia "argue" was really interesting because they are both amazingly smart and quick -- though they largely didn't respond to each other though their "discussion" was about 10 minutes in length. Clearly, he has grown to like the spotlight more and more over the years and likes to take lost causes. Remember, he is the same guy who worked for OJ Simpson. On the Tison case, I thought he was very principled but as he has been drawn to more public matters, I think he has misplaced certain principles.
Breaking news: Defense Secretary General Mattis is stepping down. I really like Mattis. He and John Kelly were about the 2 picks for the administration I agreed with, they at least would reign in Trump's impulsive nature. Now both are headed out the door.
Looks like the kneejerk decision to pull out of Syria was the final straw for Mattis. McDonald's doesn't have a turnover like this.
You guys see any smoke yet? Just another coincidence? I was told there would be winning - is this how the winning looks?
Season 2 finale of white house apprentice is a shitshow!
Quote: @VikingOracle said:
@ savannahskol said:
@ VikingOracle said:
Let me see if I can summarize the potential illegal campaign contributions (background information available here: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/handling-loans-debts-and-advances/personal-loans-candidate/)
- Except for the candidate, individuals/companies, etc. are limited to how much they can contribute to the candidate's campaign. This includes making loans or like kind contributions. The key is whether the money was "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”
- In the present case, Cohen paid Stormy and National Enquirer paid McDougal -- if viewed as campaign contribution both were in excess of what is permit by law.
- The Trump Company says that they paid Cohen back for the payments but that still, arguably, was a loan by Cohen, Moreover, from what I understand, the money came from the Trump Company, not Trump personally, and that would still amount to an impermissible campaign contribution if it was "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”
- Unclear whether National Enquirer was ever reimbursed and who reimbursed (Trump personally or the Trump Org.) Again, same above analysis applies.
- So, the only real question was whether these two payments were was "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.” Here are the facts to consider on that issue:
- One. Trump says it was to shield these purported affairs from his wife (which is the successful Edwards defense). Two, both Cohen and National Enquirer are locked in now to stating that the payments were primarily "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.” Three, the way the payments were made, through shell companies and third parties and without Trump being a party to the agreements, weighs against these payments being primarily to protect Trumps marriage because you didn't need to construct these transactions in such a manner to hide them from Melania.
So, really, the only remaining issue one needs to decide is whether these two payments were made primarily for the purposes of assisting Trump get elected. All the other facts are largely undisputed.
Not so fast... especially on points 5 & 6.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/t...ributions/
(nro is conservative...but certainly not special pleaders for Trump)
And from a Dem's take, here's Dershowitz on Cohen's statements.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/39360/der...-paul-bois
Hi Savannah:
Just want to keep this civil about your "not so fast" -- I looked at the National Review article and I agree that is Trump's defense (as I stated in 6). I think his defense is not as good as Edwards but it is a defense and may sway people (especially Trump supporters and Republican congressman). I also agree it is not a slam dunk (on either side). If Trump was not president, he would probably be indicted for it and criminally tried -- Edwards was on flimsier evidence of motive. I think points 5 and 6 are valid points and the NR and I agree that is the crux of the matter.
As for Alan Dershowitz, I may be the only person on this board who actually has met Prof Dershowitz. As a law clerk in Boston, I worked on Tison v. Arizona and I sat next to Prof. Dershowitz' brother when he argued the case in front of the US Supreme Court (it was interesting watching him and Scalia "engage"). Dershowitz has a defense lawyer mentality through and through. He interprets everything in the most positive manner for defendants (whether they are his clients or not). Much smarter than Giuliani but comes towards any criminal issue from a defense attorney mentality.
Hi Oracle: I hope you & family are well. 
With all due respect, I don't think you can compare the felony murder case you were involved in (very cool personal story, btw...I regard Dersh as a civil libertarian champion, above all else) ) to campaign finance violations. (the no-smoking signs of felonies).
"If Trump was not president, he would probably be indicted for it and criminally tried"
But, that's the point.
TOTAL non-sequitur... Trump IS the Potus. HE CANNOT BE INDICTED.
Impeach him, all you want.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
Of course it is all fake news and deep state.
& anonymous sources.
the only Trump AG that will be acceptable to Dems will be one that recuses him/herself, right?
|
![[Image: gettyimages-1061463380_1.jpg?itok=ZCvKFn...ze=450x300]](https://images.theweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/tw_image_6_4/public/gettyimages-1061463380_1.jpg?itok=ZCvKFnx5&resize=450x300)
