EPTUS Politics Mega-Blog - Page 169
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
It's coming down for him folks. SDNY is now really pushing the needle. With Sam Patten, Cohen, and Rick Gates all pleading guilty doesn't look good for Trump team. And this isn't part of the Mueller investigation, this is a whole different investigation on it's own... | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Remember the Trump Hotel computer communicating to Russian banks? Remember Papadopoulis? The dossier? The scale of hype was matched only by the later silence. Show down soon Mr Mueller and let’s see if anything’s true about treasonous collusion. I’m ready for things to go back down to improper business dealings abroad (if that’s the narrative that the left finally settles upon). | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 05 2019 12:13 Doodsmack wrote: xDaunt, any thoughts on a constitutional argument Roger Stone could make in a civil case, for his arrest? I'm not sure that Stone has a claim against Mueller's team that concerns the arrest, but then again, this isn't really my area of law. The bigger question is whether members of Mueller's team are now subject to some kind of civil, criminal, administrative (ethical), or judicial (contempt) liability for the leaks. Leaking stuff that is supposed to be under seal and/or kept confidential is a gigantic no-no for attorneys. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 05 2019 12:24 ShoCkeyy wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/us/politics/trump-inaugural-committee-subpoena.html It's coming down for him folks. SDNY is now really pushing the needle. With Sam Patten, Cohen, and Rick Gates all pleading guilty doesn't look good for Trump team. And this isn't part of the Mueller investigation, this is a whole different investigation on it's own... You're reading this wrong. SDNY is on a fishing expedition because they don't have anything yet. Mueller's team has the same problem, which was evidenced yet again by the contents (or pertinent lack thereof) of the Stone indictment. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On February 05 2019 11:14 GoTuNk! wrote: I sometimes wonder if you are a pre-programmed bot. That's probably because you pay no attention, which would explain your habit of posting Fox talking points almost word for word on a regular basis and your demonstrated lack of understanding of almost any issue. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On February 05 2019 20:22 iamthedave wrote: That's probably because you pay no attention, which would explain your habit of posting Fox talking points almost word for word on a regular basis and your demonstrated lack of understanding of almost any issue. I pay attention, and I wonder how a guy who compares low skilled jobs with slavery can tie his shoes in the morning. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9614 Posts
On February 05 2019 21:07 GoTuNk! wrote: I pay attention, and I wonder how a guy who compares low skilled jobs with slavery can tie his shoes in the morning. Comparing one thing to another thing literally means that you are analyzing the differences between them. I don't understand what your problem is. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On February 05 2019 21:07 GoTuNk! wrote: I pay attention, and I wonder how a guy who compares low skilled jobs with slavery can tie his shoes in the morning. As I said, you demonstrate absolutely no understanding of the issue. There's plenty of valid responses and counterpoints. I could come up with several. The fact you immediately resort to invective is pretty telling. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
Danglers I specifically wrote this has nothing to do with Mueller yet you brought him up as if he’s running the SDNY investigation lmao | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 05 2019 23:42 ShoCkeyy wrote: xDaunt is it or is it not an investigation into Trumps Inaugural Committee? Because it sure looks like it’s an investigation. Especially when they were subpoenaed. If there wasn’t anything then th subpoenas wouldn’t happen right? Danglers I specifically wrote this has nothing to do with Mueller yet you brought him up as if he’s running the SDNY investigation lmao You’ll notice I specifically cited examples of “the next big thing” promises to really bring Trump down (or really put the screws in him) that weren’t Mueller in there too. You think those were all Mueller lol? It feels like three of these stories are born and die every two weeks. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 05 2019 23:42 ShoCkeyy wrote: xDaunt is it or is it not an investigation into Trumps Inaugural Committee? Because it sure looks like it’s an investigation. Especially when they were subpoenaed. If there wasn’t anything then th subpoenas wouldn’t happen right? Danglers I specifically wrote this has nothing to do with Mueller yet you brought him up as if he’s running the SDNY investigation lmao Sure, it is an investigation by SDNY like I said. My point in bringing up Mueller is that this is the same type of story that we have seen for the past two years in which a news outlets breathlessly reports that something relating to Trump is under investigation so as to create the impression that Trump did something seriously wrong. Now, while the Russia collusion stuff is starting to look like a set up of Trump, I'm not willing to entertain that thought yet as it pertains to the SDNY investigation. My point is merely that all of these reports of "investigations" into Trump mean little more than the media and various others are flailing in their attempts to take down Trump. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On February 06 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote: Sure, it is an investigation by SDNY like I said. My point in bringing up Mueller is that this is the same type of story that we have seen for the past two years in which a news outlets breathlessly reports that something relating to Trump is under investigation so as to create the impression that Trump did something seriously wrong. Now, while the Russia collusion stuff is starting to look like a set up of Trump, I'm not willing to entertain that thought yet as it pertains to the SDNY investigation. My point is merely that all of these reports of "investigations" into Trump mean little more than the media and various others are flailing in their attempts to take down Trump. I agree. But one puzzling thing to me is why you don't see the same thing with Hilary. You obviously give more credit to Hilary accusations than Trump ones, but I don't understand why beyond gut my team/their team dynamics. Do you not recognise that the character of the two sets of accusations is borderline identical? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 04 2019 07:37 IgnE wrote: I wasn't pushing you anywhere, I was letting you decide where to go. I asked what kinds of truths you think are knowable and you deliberately decided not to talk about ethics and/or morality. Do you think that there are knowable, absolute moral and/or ethical truths? I do believe that there is an absolute, objective morality. What I am less sure of is the extent to which it is completely knowable. There's nothing particularly "true" about our categories for sex or gender. Empirically speaking, trans people are not in denial about what their body looks like, what body parts they have, what chromosomes they have, or whether or not they had or have high levels of testosterone coursing through their body. What is in dispute is the categories sex and gender themselves, categories constituting and constituted by interpersonal discourse. So what are we to make of your suggestion that "sex classifications [should be] based upon … objective measures?" If we agree the dispute is over the categories (i.e. not the scientifically empirical), then this assertion is ultimately a normative, subjective stance concerning what we might call the "meaning" of "woman" or "man." But I am at a loss as to how this dispute concerns something you've called "subjectivism," or how it concerns truth. I disagree with your construction of what the trans community is doing. Yes, there certainly is a categorization component of their advocacy in which they are redefining sex and gender and creating more boxes than just "male" and "female." But this categorization component is only skin deep. The real action lies in the boxes that they are creating and how those boxes are defined. Those boxes are defined through concepts of self-identity. So what we ultimately get is gender as a spectrum in which the individuals place themselves. And just to complicate matters, gender is now a fluid concept, so people can move themselves up and down the spectrum as they see fit. The intellectual foundation for this is dubious at best. If you were really concerned about whether someone had a penis or ovaries (or neither or both), would simply changing the question from "what sex are you?" to "what kind of gonads do you have?" satisfy you? Or are you are invested in the specific question of "what sex are you?" And, if you are, have you thought about what it might mean to compel people to answer that question a certain way? For the most part, I really don't care what people do in their private lives and how they view themselves. What I do care about is the extent to which these otherwise private views affect the greater society. To your point, I certainly get that "compelling" people to answer the gender/sex question in a certain way may negatively impact those people. But I am not prepared to conclude that their interests are as important as the greater majority's. The trans community is minuscule part of the greater population. While I don't mind giving them basic protections, they must conform to us rather than impose their views upon us. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 06 2019 00:52 iamthedave wrote: I agree. But one puzzling thing to me is why you don't see the same thing with Hilary. You obviously give more credit to Hilary accusations than Trump ones, but I don't understand why beyond gut my team/their team dynamics. Do you not recognise that the character of the two sets of accusations is borderline identical? Because she hasn't been investigated (to our knowledge). Literally everything that she did that, on its face, looks far worse than what Trump has done has been swept under the rug by one government agency or another. I really don't mind that much that an investigation was made into Trump and his campaign. Law enforcement has considerable discretion to look at potentially criminal activity when made aware of it. What I do mind is the manner in which the FBI and DOJ have gone about their investigation of Trump. There is quite a record now of these entities manufacturing and laundering evidence for the purpose of pushing an investigation about which they should have concluded that there was no merit long ago. Throw in the obvious politicization of the campaign, including the rampant media leaks, and it is obvious that something wrong has happened. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
Here's a report from your man himself Ron Johnson, obviously some Bias in the report, but I also included the FBI's report. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-07 Interim Report_The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of It.pdf https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary R. Clinton Part 01 of 28/view The fact that you probably overlook Pence's use of personal email, and not Hillary's use of personal emails shows your own bias. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On February 06 2019 01:52 xDaunt wrote: I'm not overlooking anyone's personal use of emails. But to my knowledge, no one did what Hillary did. Nor was anyone else's email compromised to the degree that Hillary's was. Now, if you want to take the position that Hillary's use of personal email was investigated, I think that's fair. There was quite a bit of investigation into it. However, that still doesn't change the fact that it was all swept under the rug by DOJ rather than prosecuted as it should have been. Again, Comey outlined in explicit detail how she violated the law even though he purposefully tweaked some of the language that he used to justify not referring her for prosecution. As an IT security specialist, and ex-custodian of government cryptos, I have issue with the assumption that Hillary's emails were compromised. First, IT security : her server was not hacked to the extent of the available knowledge and expertise conducted... So no, her email server, while underprotected (since it was accessible via RDP hence somewhat vulnerable), has not been compromised until proven otherwise. Then a fucking idiot (sorry, no other words) deleted emails after their retention was ordered, as we was supposed to have done the deletion prior to the request but failed to do so. Second, classified data assets compromission is by definition when classified information is out in the open (lost, opened in an unsecured area where unauthorized eyes can land on them, other reasons) and has been potentially disseminated. While there was definitely a breach of the rules in dealing with classified information, it was not determined that she had lost classified data due to that. (If you compare to the guy that took pictures of classified areas of a submarine, and SENT THEM to someone else, that shouldn't have had access to those. That guy, whom Trump often referred to, has been convicted due to that dissemination of information). She did lie about the fact that it contained no classified information, and probably should have been charged with that, at least. Though it seems the messages in question were not really properly marked, and from experience, politicians, though they should, are usually not proficient enough in classifications. HRC was not a newbie, she should know, but it's pretty hard to prove the intent to lie/deceive. Again, you are supposedly a lawyer, but often use very specific words in the wrong way. Please be careful. | ||
| ||
