Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Penn

StringerBell wrote: »

It's one of the biggest jokes of the whole process that they can "correct the record" so easily after testimony actually.

Agreed. However in a way it's good because it shows the House Committees were right to hold these initial hearings in private because they can see people's testimonies conflicting with each other, and it means those who are willing to correct their testimonies are doing so because they know they might be held up for perjury after so are willing to comply and correct the record.

I'd allow that over the obfuscation and stonewalling of the Trump Admin any day.

26000 Elephants

StringerBell wrote: »

It's one of the biggest jokes of the whole process that they can "correct the record" so easily after testimony actually.

Its probably not a bad idea. The crime here isnt perjury, its 'making misleading statements' under USC 18 1001, so the same as lying to a police officer. Materiality is a core principle of the law, so during early stages it hasn't been established what precisely is material, thus giving people an opportunity to correct statements seems reasonable.

Overheal

Flynn in other news has lost his quirky appeal against his own guilty plea

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/extraordinary-reversal-federal-prosecutors-emphatically-reject-michael-flynns-claim-of-innocence/

So yeah he’s still guilty. The court found that the evidence he was trying to fish for not only didn’t exculpate him it wasn’t relevant to his case.

26000 Elephants

Overheal wrote: »

Flynn in other news has lost his quirky appeal against his own guilty plea

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/extraordinary-reversal-federal-prosecutors-emphatically-reject-michael-flynns-claim-of-innocence/

So yeah he’s still guilty. The court found that the evidence he was trying to fish for not only didn’t exculpate him it wasn’t relevant to his case.

This will have major repercussions for the whole "I was guilty then, but not now" defence.

everlast75

26000 Elephants wrote: »

This will have major repercussions for the whole "I was guilty then, but not now" defence.

The judge has already made it known that the proverbial book will be thrown at him when D day arrives.

Frankly, for someone who chanted "lock her up", that will be some sweet sweet justice.

Overheal

everlast75 wrote: »

The judge has already made it known that the proverbial book will be thrown at him when D day arrives.

Frankly, for someone who chanted "lock her up", that will be some sweet sweet justice.

SPEAKING OF THAT,

Frank Lutz on Fox News called for baseball fans to be “held accountable” for lock him up chant at Nationals game 5

https://www.mediaite.com/news/lock-them-up-fox-news-frank-luntz-says-fans-should-be-held-accountable-for-booing-trump/

eire4

Overheal wrote: »

SPEAKING OF THAT,

Frank Lutz on Fox News called for baseball fans to be “held accountable” for lock him up chant at Nationals game 5

https://www.mediaite.com/news/lock-them-up-fox-news-frank-luntz-says-fans-should-be-held-accountable-for-booing-trump/

I bet he would like to see those fans "held Accountable" that would be right up the alleyway of the far right in the US and the president who would happily see the US go from its current status (IMHO) as an oligarchy into a full on authoritarian state where dissent is not tolerated.

aloyisious

Penn wrote: »

Sondland now trying to change his statement to say that there was Quid Pro Quo

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1189150919683903488

Quite possible he sees the writing on the wall and knows that other people's testimony might screw him.

We saw what was written in published text conversations between him and the other ambassador and how he told him he'd talk to him by phone. It's probable that other as yet unpublished texts reveal he knew more than he had been prepared to admit to. It's probable there were other persons on his texting list stored on his phone's data record. I cant see him having only one device with a stored record of conversations.

26000 Elephants

It looks like Vindmans testimony today is another live grenade going off in the face of Republicans. It seems that he is another professional note taker and has a contemporaneous record of the July 25th call and mentioned one or two discrepancies between those and the published notes. May just be subjective differences, but clearly not a transcript of that call.

Must be indicative of a major problem for Trump, because the right have already started a media campaign to discredit him and impune his reputation.

Quin_Dub

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Must be indicative of a major problem for Trump, because the right have already started a media campaign to discredit him and impune his reputation.

It is interesting though how many GOP Representatives are coming to his defence, at least in terms of those questioning his loyalties etc.

marno21

Murray Energy, the US' biggest privately owned coal mining company, owned by a massive pro-Trump donor, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/29/774391189/nations-largest-coal-producer-and-trump-booster-files-for-bankruptcy

So much for the clean coal and all that.

Overheal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It is interesting though how many GOP Representatives are coming to his defence, at least in terms of those questioning his loyalties etc.

There’s been a huge walk back since this morning; once RNC leadership spoke out the Fox people who pushed it, including the Torture Memos author, have tried to say they weren’t impugning him at all despite accusing him of espionage

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-yoo-denies-accusing-vindman-of-espionage-saying-i-did-deliberately-misconstrues-my-words/

Sean Duffy newly minted GOP guy at CNN also tried to downplay the spin on his earlier segment

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/sean-duffy-defends-lt-col-vindmans-affinity-for-ukraine-comment-wasnt-trying-to-undermine-his-service/

26000 Elephants

Overheal wrote: »

There’s been a huge walk back since this morning; once RNC leadership spoke out the Fox people who pushed it, including the Torture Memos author, have tried to say they weren’t impugning him at all despite accusing him of espionage

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-yoo-denies-accusing-vindman-of-espionage-saying-i-did-deliberately-misconstrues-my-words/

Sean Duffy newly minted GOP guy at CNN also tried to downplay the spin on his earlier segment

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/sean-duffy-defends-lt-col-vindmans-affinity-for-ukraine-comment-wasnt-trying-to-undermine-his-service/

I saw a piece where one anchor called him out on his rhetoric, calling it "anti immigrant bigotry"
He very weakly countered with "well, I'm Irish..."
Not sure if that was meant as a defence or an excuse.....

Dear lord, it's not a good look when you spend your youth on tv shows, and try to throw shade at a guy who was earning a purple heart in Iraq at that time.

everlast75

Overheal wrote: »

SPEAKING OF THAT,

Frank Lutz on Fox News called for baseball fans to be “held accountable” for lock him up chant at Nationals game 5

https://www.mediaite.com/news/lock-them-up-fox-news-frank-luntz-says-fans-should-be-held-accountable-for-booing-trump/

Excuse me for unparliamentary language Deputy Stag, but **** you!

StringerBell

Watching that south park episode now where the giant douche (Garrison/Trump) is running against the turd sandwich. (Clinton)

As so often is the way with south park, it's juvenile but so, so apt.

SJW Lover

duploelabs wrote: »

One can point all they want to the evidence that's in the public forum, yet if one as that poster claims they haven't, refuses to read said evidence then all we can do is let them go back to their realm of cognitive dissonance and unreasonable debate, hopefully far from here as they provide no insight or objective viewpoint to differ

Sorry, what evidence has been provided? Someone dumped a link to the report. Can you point to where the evidence is in that report? If you cant, then that poster is correct and no evidence has been furnished, just claims.

SJW Lover

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Widely accepted by the usual establishment media, political and Intel agencies. You seem to think these have any credibility, are some kind of independent at arbiters of truth and should have their claims taken at face value? Ridiculous.

Not one single piece of actual evidence of Russian State interference in the US election has ever been made public. Not one. You clearly believe there has been. Provide it so. Saying all US intel agencies agree Russia interfered is simply saying, yes, a load of known to be corrupt organisations with a vested interest in portraying Russia as the bogie man, make the claim Russia interfered, and you all swallow it whole. They didn't even have to provide you with any evidence.

"All the intelligence agencies said so"


That seems to be enough for those in the politics forum here. People really are that naive.

StringerBell

That was an extremely quick turnaround tbf, not even a change of style, some grammatical difference, different phrases. Nothing. Bravo good sir, bravo.

SJW Lover

StringerBell wrote: »

That was an extremely quick turnaround tbf, not even a change of style, some grammatical difference, different phrases. Nothing. Bravo good sir, bravo.

Nope, different poster. But, unlike that poster, know that insults will only lead one way here. Plus, i 100% agree with that poster although he/she made the argument much better than i could ever hope to and a quick look at my posts on the crapshow that is america right now would definitely align me to their way of thinking.


You all got schooled by the way and the shallowness of this forum's thinking exposed. I mean, i read back 10 pages and he/she asked for evidence multiple times and got told it was true because the US intelligence agencies said so. I mean, come on. You lot just believe those people without question?

StringerBell

Who is, "you lot?" I am pretty certain I didn't engage with the other account at all Ted.

In all honesty I kinda skimmed most of it, as I normally do when I know it will be drivel. From memory, the account didn't like trump, but he was no worse than anyone else... especially Obama funnily and he did not trust, the media, the government, the intelligence agencies, probably some others I am forgetting but did trust wikileaks. It's been done time and again, nothing new.

Would you like to engage in good spirited debate on anything? I have about 30 minutes of free time here I can give you.

SJW Lover

StringerBell wrote: »

Who is, "you lot?" I am pretty certain I didn't engage with the other account at all Ted.

In all honesty I kinda skimmed most of it, as I normally do when I know it will be drivel. From memory, the account didn't like trump, but he was no worse than anyone else... especially Obama funnily and he did not trust, the media, the government, the intelligence agencies, probably some others I am forgetting but did trust wikileaks. It's been done time and again, nothing new.

Would you like to engage in good spirited debate on anything? I have about 30 minutes of free time here I can give you.

So you didnt engage, paid no attention to what was said, accused me of being the banned poster because i agreed with him/her and now say you can spare me 30 minutes for some "good spirited debate". Good man

26000 Elephants

SJW Lover wrote: »

Nope, different poster.

LOL. It's one thing having puppet accounts, but having them talk to each other is gas.

Work on your tells, they are obvious.

StringerBell

SJW Lover wrote: »

So you didnt engage, paid no attention to what was said, accused me of being the banned poster because i agreed with him/her and now say you can spare me 30 minutes for some "good spirited debate". Good man

Skimmed, I detailed pretty simply what I picked up from the posts.

Yes, I am willing to engage this account with debate. I will take your response as you are unwilling to do so, unsurprisingly. Still got a good 15 minutes for you here though if you change your mind.

If your wanting to be pc I think your pronouns should possibly be him/her/they/them?

SJW Lover

26000 Elephants wrote: »

LOL. It's one thing having puppet accounts, but having them talk to each other is gas.

Work on your tells, they are obvious.

You're seeing what you want to see, i'm afraid. I think you need to work on providing answers to the simple question that was asked of you. Claims are not evidence. Coming up with childish posts like the above won't cut it.



Reported.

SJW Lover

StringerBell wrote: »

Skimmed, I detailed pretty simply what I picked up from the posts.

Yes, I am willing to engage this account with debate. I will take your response as you are unwilling to do so, unsurprisingly. Still got a good 15 minutes for you here though if you change your mind.

If your wanting to be pc I think your pronouns should possibly be him/her/they/them?

It's "you're". And not sure where you get the idea i was trying to be pc?

Professor Moriarty

SJW Lover wrote: »

It's "you're". And not sure where you get the idea i was trying to be pc?

Capital 'I'. And, strictly speaking, you shouldn't start a sentence with 'And'. Plus you left out 'I'm' after 'And'. Also, "pc" should be in capitals.

SJW Lover

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Capital 'I'. And, strictly speaking, you should not start a sentence with 'And'. Plus you left out 'I'm' after 'And'. Also, "pc" should be in capitals.

FYP


So, where is the evidence?

Professor Moriarty

SJW Lover wrote: »

FYP


So, where is the evidence?

Well, 'shouldn't' is perfectly acceptable. Anyway, Dupo posted a link to the indictment earlier. It really is worth reading. Personally, I would believe the intelligence agencies, Rep/Dem politicians, the MSM etc. However, I'd be very happy to have that belief challenged by facts that prove Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election. Do you have such facts?

aloyisious

SJW Lover wrote: »

You're seeing what you want to see, i'm afraid. I think you need to work on providing answers to the simple question that was asked of you. Claims are not evidence. Coming up with childish posts like the above won't cut it.



Reported.

The other side of the coin or argument that people are seeing what the want to see also applies to aretheymyfeet. Just saying "that's not evidence" as a mantra doesn't cut mustard as an argument. No amount of continuing that line from another poster makes it a legitimate argument or debating line.

SJW Lover

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, 'shouldn't' is perfectly acceptable. Anyway, Dupo posted a link to the indictment earlier. It really is worth reading. Personally, I would believe the intelligence agencies, Rep/Dem politicians, the MSM etc. However, I'd be very happy to have that belief challenged by facts that prove Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election. Do you have such facts?

I've read the indictment. There is no evidence contained in it. There are claims. Can you point out the evidence to me?


Claims are not evidence. As you say, you believe the intelligence agencies despite their track record of lying about pretty much everything. I think that is extremely foolish and naive.