Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[NeedsAdjustments]

So Donald Trump admitted today that Russia helped get him elected.

Didnt hear that - but I did hear him criticize Obama for knowing Russia was interfering and doing nothing.

Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.

--

I heard that critique too.  But Trump should be directing it at McConnell.  And of course, years after it happened, with ever present warnings from intelligence officials and a Special Council put in charge of investigating it, Trump is not only doing nothing, but actively encouraging it.

[NeedsAdjustments]

The Commander-in-Pettiness strikes again:

White House Wanted USS John McCain ‘Out of Sight’ During Trump Japan Visit
The White House wanted the Navy to move a warship named for the late Sen. John McCain—a frequent target of President Trump’s ire—and his father and grandfather ahead of the president’s visit to Japan.

Prove it.

Kiid becomes more of a cartoon with each passing day.

Trump denies it, so naturally that calls the news report into question.  Not like a history of lying on a daily basis should lead anyone to think the exact opposite.

Actually Trump has admitted it happened, he just passed the blame off on an unidentified officious interloper. "They were well-meaning, I will say."

Thanks, Whisk.  At least one of you is thinking clearly.

LOL.  My post was before Trump's statement.  And an hour ago you were denying it happened at all.

[kiidcarter8]

According to an email reviewed on Wednesday by the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the story, a US military official ordered that “USS John McCain needs to be out of sight” when the president arrives. That directive apparently came after conversations between the White House Military Office, which provides travel and other support to the president, and the US Navy.

The implications are not that hard to discern, are they, Kid?  Trump's staff feel they have a touchy patient who needs careful handling.   Must not let him be reminded of McCain!

That Trump thinks such a move, one that denigrates a dedicated public servant and much-honored American, is well-meaning, says something about him that perhaps "clear thinking" can uncover for you.

All fair, Barton.  Josh was wrong.

[kiidcarter8]

I think all the McCain stuff is quite silly.

"MY FATHER was a hero!"

OK, relax now.....

[kiidcarter8]

So Donald Trump admitted today that Russia helped get him elected.

Didnt hear that - but I did hear him criticize Obama for knowing Russia was interfering and doing nothing.

Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected

--

I heard that critique too.  But Trump should be directing it at McConnell.  And of course, years after it happened, with ever present warnings from intelligence officials and a Special Council put in charge of investigating it, Trump is not only doing nothing, but actively encouraging it.

heh

No.

[kiidcarter8]

Partisan Mueller - indeed -

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role#.XO7RNRd2GnU.twitter

As is typical of the source, the piece is both interesting and wrongheaded.

- Interesting that Dershowitz admits that Mueller's statement was nearly as good as a declaration of guilt.  That's something that the WH would strenuously argue against, I think, judging from their statements post-Mueller's announcement.

- Interesting because I did not hear many in Conservative circles criticize Comey's presser after his conclusion on Hillary.  Maybe Dershowitz did back then, I don't know.  But he isn't the only one all upset now that Mueller has done something similar.

- Wrongheaded that Dershowitz says, several times, that Mueller's statement went beyond the report.  The sentence in question was more or less identical to one that appears in the report.  Moreover, even Barr's letter quoted that the report was not an exoneration of Trump.  Not an exoneration...we will not say he is not guilty...those are absolutely the same thing.

- Wrongheaded that Dershowitz seems to think that coming to a conclusion is not in Mueller's scope, and is somehow "partisan."  I was under the impression that people were expecting conclusions before the report came out.  I am also supposed to believe that Barr is frustrated that Mueller did not do so on Obstruction.  Certainly, Trump feels that Mueller came to a conclusion when he incorrectly trumpets "No Collusion!"  You can't celebrate when you think Mueller concludes one thing, that call him "partisan" when he calls out your mischaracterization of his work.

Dershowitz is correct that Mueller can not declare the President guilty outright.  The reasons he lays out for his not being able to do so are repeated in the report!  But if he is right that Mueller's statement yesterday was meant to be an impeachment referral, then shouldn't the fact that the Special Council who investigated the "President" for two years thinks Congress should open impeachment proceedings take precedent over petty calls of partisanship? 

Mueller was hired to present a finding on Trump's lawlessness.  One can only interpret the accusation that Mueller is "partisan" for doing so is that certain people don't like those findings.

Dershowitz got it right, I think.  Mueller did mean his statement yesterday as an insinuation that Donald Trump is guilty of something, even if only crafty and dirty politicking. 

It's OK. Mueller had to get it off his chest somehow, as he won't be testifying.

[NeedsAdjustments]

So Donald Trump admitted today that Russia helped get him elected.

Didnt hear that - but I did hear him criticize Obama for knowing Russia was interfering and doing nothing.

Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected

--

I heard that critique too.  But Trump should be directing it at McConnell.  And of course, years after it happened, with ever present warnings from intelligence officials and a Special Council put in charge of investigating it, Trump is not only doing nothing, but actively encouraging it.

heh

No.

Never caught your answer to this one, kiidcarter8:

Question:  Isn’t it on the beneficiary of Russian interference to come out and say publicly “I don’t want the help, its counter to our democratic interests, and I will in no way use or reference material stolen by Russia, or reward their meddling once in office.”

Trump had a call a few weeks ago with Putin and didn't bring it up.  This, on top of the fact that he has publicly sucked Putin off, advocated for the lifting of sanctions, and denied their involvement as "President."  If you don't see that as active encouragement, you have blinders on.

Meanwhile, McConnell is blocking election security legislation, and the Senate blocks funding to the States even as news breaks that several counties in Florida (and likely other swing states) were successfully hacked.

Obama did warn Putin to back off, in person.  His administration did encourage countermeasures.  And he did push for a bipartisan statement which would be similar to the one I drafted for Trump above, which would discourage Russia's efforts. 

Yet you claim Obama did "nothing" while Trump is doing...something?  Total idiocy.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Dershowitz got it right, I think.  Mueller did mean his statement yesterday as an insinuation that Donald Trump is guilty of something, even if only crafty and dirty politicking. 

Dershowitz got something right that he never argued in the piece?  Huh.

Its "crafty politicking" to lie to the American public, encourage contacts with a hostile foreign adversary that is actively attacking our Democracy, then abuse your position as President to try to shut down an investigation into those activities?

I think even Dershowitz is smart enough to not put words that idiotic on paper.

[kiidcarter8]

Reward (Russia's) meddling?

How so?

By continuing to speak to them?

Trump did mention backup paper ballots today and is in favor of the work Florida is doing (has done) to make their elections more secure.

Should he be spending every waking moment on this?  Of course not.

[kiidcarter8]

Needs - get a grip

Trump didn't deny Russia's involvement.  He has denied HIS OWN.

[kiidcarter8]

Alan the Noble:

Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.

Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.

That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Needs - get a grip

Trump didn't deny Russia's involvement.  He has denied HIS OWN.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/11/politics/president-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-election-meddling/index.html

[NeedsAdjustments]

Reward (Russia's) meddling?

How so?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/sanctions-oleg-deripaska-russia-trump.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-moves-to-return-russian-compounds-in-maryland-and-new-york/2017/05/31/3c4778d2-4616-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc_story.html?utm_term=.85b503931227

https://centralnewsnow.com/trump-questions-the-core-of-nato-mutual-self-defense/

...could go on.  And these efforts probably would have been much more present had the heat not been on Trump re: Russia from the start of his administration. 

[kiidcarter8]

You think Putin was behind it all.  That's fine.  Rational, knowing the subject.

Trump says he believed Putin when he was told Putin had no knowledge.

Trump has admitted there was interference.  Just believes Putin that Putin did not orchestrate it.  (or is putting out that signal despite what he really feels).

Maybe - as with the McCain ship thing (hating to bring that up again) someone under Putin did the deed - and it WAS in fact unknown to the Russian president. 

Vlad said he didnt know about it, not that he didnt appreciate it.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict.

This is not a normal case.  What should a Special Council do when tasked with evaluating the President's guilt, who finds evidence of the President's guilt, but is not permitted by DOJ guidelines to indict based on that evidence?