All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Tero]

I meant reading his tweets and posting naked Melania as response.

Meanwhile: so much winning!
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politi ... cnn.com%2F

[Sean Hayden]

Roger Stone’s Arrest Was Appropriate, Not Heavy-Handed

...
At least to my knowledge, Stone has no criminal record and is charged primarily with a white collar-ish sort of crime—lying to Congress. Those two factors might suggest that prosecutors forego an arrest and hand him a summons to turn himself in, as is typical in white-collar cases.

Stone was also charged with witness tampering, a crime that strikes at the heart of the judicial process. There are numerous allegations in the indictment of Stone urging others to lie. Those urgings clearly run afoul of the witness tampering statute. And, if that’s all there was to it, a summons might be the way to go.

But there is a more compelling reason to arrest him. The devil is in the details. Read, for instance, page 20 of the indictment, where prosecutors note that Stone emailed one witness and called him a “rat” and a “stoolie” and threatened to take that witness’s dog away from him. In another email that same day to that same witness, according to the indictment, Stone wrote “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die [expletive].”

Law enforcement simply does not hand a summons to someone who threatens to kill a witness and trust that person to act responsibly with it. No conscientious prosecutor would think a summons appropriate there, or think that a threat to kill a witness is simply what targets of grand jury investigations routinely do.

The witness tampering alleged here is more than just someone asking another, “pretty please,” to lie. Rather, it includes a death threat against a witness: “Prepare to die [expletive].”

Was Stone kidding? Maybe. Was it hyperbole? Perhaps. He can explain that after his arrest.

Arresting Stone was lawful, appropriate and fully justified by his own words and conduct.

Chuck Rosenberg is a former U.S. attorney, senior FBI official and chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/roger-stone ... avy-handed

[Brian Peacock]

Wish I could stop listening to asshole Trump like Cunt stopped listening to politically correct NPR.

I don't listen to Trump. I have to read him as looking and listening to him makes me physically sick. Even reading him is bad enough. I wish they'd write him in proper English instead of verbatim with a lot of sic.

This why Sassy Trump is such a valuable resource...

[Forty Two]

Are you still relying on circumstantial evidence to support your assertions about the "collusion" between CNN and the FBI, or has some hard evidence surfaced?

Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, like when a trout is in the milk. Henry David Thoreau.

I'm surprised that you might find something to question regarding reliance on circumstantial evidence to support the assertion of "collusion" between Person A and Person B. At least circumstantial evidence is evidence. We've been talking about other allegations of "collusion" for two years now without even circumstantial evidence offered - that seems to be believable to many simply because of 'smoke' and personal disdain.

[Forty Two]

I meant reading his tweets and posting naked Melania as response.

Meanwhile: so much winning!
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politi ... cnn.com%2F

That is winning.

The treaty he announced suspending - the intermediate range missile treaty -- is one the Russians have been violating for about 10 years now. The NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced today in no uncertain terms that Russia was in violation, that NATO supports the US decision 100% and Russia has the 6 months suspension period to come into compliance or the failure of the treaty is 100% Russia's fault.

Now, of course, the Democrats are bleating on and on about how awful this is, and it's Trump starting a "new arms race" with Russia.... Russia... you know the Russia that Trump is in "collusion" with, or alternatively that he's the "lackey" or "stooge" of and "what does Putin have on Trump?"

Fucking people. Jeez. You want the fucking guy to go against his NATO allies, and leave a treaty in place when Russia is flagrantly violating it?

And, the Paris Agreement - yes! That whole Paris Agreement was a ridiculous farce and everyone knows it.

Trans Pacific Partnership? Who remained in favor that thing? The TPP was blasted by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and a host of major Democrat figures - it was criticized as a corporatist deal that wasn't good for main street or the average American. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no ... e15eb518f9 But - Trump didn't like it, so now it's a bad thing that it's killed. Guaranteed, if Trump let it slide in, you'd criticize him for that, citing Bernie and Chief Spreading Bull as your key sources of TPP criticism.

The South Korean Trade Deal was killed - it was renegotiated. So, yes, winning.

NAFTA was renegotiated, for the better. Yes, winning.

Singapore Agreement - not killed - signed - Yes, winning.

UN Human Rights Council -- sure, pulled out and that's a good thing. That's the entity that let's ridiculous countries with horrid human rights records to be members, and issues more resolutions against Israel than the entirety of the rest of the world combined. Yes, pull the fuck out and move on. Winning.

The Iran Deal? Dopey one-side deal. Good. We're out. Winning.

NATO? Trump questioned NATO as obsolete and members not paying their fair share and he got results. His complaints about NATO were bipartisan ones. It's only when Trump says them, then they're a problem.

[Joe]

Are you still relying on circumstantial evidence to support your assertions about the "collusion" between CNN and the FBI, or has some hard evidence surfaced?

Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, like when a trout is in the milk. Henry David Thoreau.

I'm surprised that you might find something to question regarding reliance on circumstantial evidence to support the assertion of "collusion" between Person A and Person B. At least circumstantial evidence is evidence. We've been talking about other allegations of "collusion" for two years now without even circumstantial evidence offered - that seems to be believable to many simply because of 'smoke' and personal disdain.

Well, I still don't consider poets to be authorities on evidence, so I'll take that as a no.

I don't see why your're surprised at my question when I expressed my reservations about your reasoning point by point in an earlier post.

Perhaps you missed it?

[Tero]

Yeah, no more Al Gores of the world regulatin’ and taxing us. Pull out of everything. Just like he pulled out of Stormy seconds after he came.

[Forty Two]

Are you still relying on circumstantial evidence to support your assertions about the "collusion" between CNN and the FBI, or has some hard evidence surfaced?

Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, like when a trout is in the milk. Henry David Thoreau.

I'm surprised that you might find something to question regarding reliance on circumstantial evidence to support the assertion of "collusion" between Person A and Person B. At least circumstantial evidence is evidence. We've been talking about other allegations of "collusion" for two years now without even circumstantial evidence offered - that seems to be believable to many simply because of 'smoke' and personal disdain.

Well, I still don't consider poets to be authorities on evidence, so I'll take that as a no.

Why wouldn't you take it as a "yes?" Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 528 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Ky.1975) (quoting Henry David Thoreau, the court states that “ ‘some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk’ ”); Hankins v State, 646 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. 1981) (same, citing persuasiveness of circumstantial evidence).

I don't see why your're surprised at my question when I expressed my reservations about your reasoning point by point in an earlier post.

Perhaps you missed it?

That's called a scoop? What was the scoop? The quote from the reporter at issue was that he noticed that the grand jury met on Thursday rather than Friday. Would you glean from that the need to jump on a plane and be at Roger Stone's house at 5am with a full camera crew? I doubt you would. It didn't clue anyone else - no other investigative journalists or reporters -- either. This reporter was a GENIUS! He saw the grand jury meet on Thursday, and that meant to him that there would be SWAT bust the next morning at Roger Stone's house.

CNN's report was from the sidewalk - but the entire street was blocked off. Nobody (else) was allowed there.

15 agents to raid a congressman's office? Note how that's noteworthy because of its rarity. One of my points, exactly.

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

But my expressing my limited understanding was somehow a trigger to you, and you have to attack me for being uninformed.

Not exactly. I was attacking you for your insistence that you could contribute anything worthwhile to a debate on climate change while admitting you are uninformed...

[JimC]

It's mostly just the US which has turned the issue of climate change into a "right vs left" thing (not that some haven't tried in the UK and Australia). Which just goes that to show you that the issue has nothing to do with leftwing politics or the media in the States, they just accept what everyone else who understands the science does, and everything to do with the right manufacturing the "controversy" and accusations of the other side doing the same is projection.

The issue is apolitical.

IMO, that needs clarification. The facts about climate change and its causes are apolitical, as is the fact that we will need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels if we want to ameliorate the dangerous effects.

Exactly how such major changes should be achieved is very definitely political...

[Forty Two]

Cunt wrote:

But my expressing my limited understanding was somehow a trigger to you, and you have to attack me for being uninformed.

Not exactly. I was attacking you for your insistence that you could contribute anything worthwhile to a debate on climate change while admitting you are uninformed...

In all fairness, most people here are uninformed about the climate debate. Mouthing agreement to climate change and proposed solutions isn't what makes someone "informed."

[Forty Two]

It's mostly just the US which has turned the issue of climate change into a "right vs left" thing (not that some haven't tried in the UK and Australia). Which just goes that to show you that the issue has nothing to do with leftwing politics or the media in the States, they just accept what everyone else who understands the science does, and everything to do with the right manufacturing the "controversy" and accusations of the other side doing the same is projection.

The issue is apolitical.

IMO, that needs clarification. The facts about climate change and its causes are apolitical, as is the fact that we will need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels if we want to ameliorate the dangerous effects.

Exactly how such major changes should be achieved is very definitely political...

Doc Holliday

Doc.jpg (6.47 KiB) Viewed 2383 times

[Seabass]

In all fairness, most people here are uninformed about the climate debate. Mouthing agreement to climate change and proposed solutions isn't what makes someone "informed."

You support a president who thinks it's a Chinese hoax. You link to climate denier websites. Put a sock in it.

[pErvinalia]

You have this guy getting elected to your Parliament. But, somehow, the US is worse, because, what? You have higher offices in Ireland that he wouldn't get elected to? Which ones?

President.

[Seabass]

Yes, that politician there in Ireland was a member of the Irish Dail -- Parliament - which is the equivalent of the US Congress. So, "we all laughed" except the majority of his constituency who voted for him, even though he is pro-Life, against same sex marriage, and an open climate change denier. Michael Fitzmaurice described climate change as a "Houdini act."

There are climate denialist lobbying and other groups out of Ireland too.

You say that in the US, a politicians says that and they get elected to some of the highest positions the country has to offer? Well, being elected to the US congress is about as high as most people get, unless it's elected President. How does that make it worse in the US?

You have this guy getting elected to your Parliament. But, somehow, the US is worse, because, what? You have higher offices in Ireland that he wouldn't get elected to? Which ones?

In Northern Ireland, there's Sammy Wilson, who called climate change a "giant con game" and a scam. In Northern Ireland - part of the UK - women can't get any abortions unless their life depends on it. Thomas Buchanan called for creationism to be taught in Northern Ireland's public schools. Trevor Clarke said that only gay people could be infected by HIV - like two years ago.

The whole damn Republican party is a party of climate deniers. I don't know Irish politics, but I doubt any of their major political parties are as anti-science as your beloved Republican party.