Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Massena's Trump Files III

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    And it rose despite impeachment.
    Or it rose "because of" impeachment.
    But trump's "relative quiet" is really only noticed by those obsessed with him or politics not the average voter.
    Average people can't escape the evening news or MSM. And despite constant negative coverage in the MSM, trump's his ratings increased.
    Kind of surprising actually.
    Actually I think everyone has said if Trump shut up he would gain a few percentage points.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by craven View Post

      Actually I think everyone has said if Trump shut up he would gain a few percentage points.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #33
        Interesting but not unexpected:

        https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/polit...ook/index.html
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • Nichols
          Nichols commented
          Editing a comment
          Originally posted by Massena View Post
          Interesting but not unexpected:
          From you link:

          The letter, which is dated January 23, said some of the information was classified at the "top secret" level, meaning it "reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security."

          "The manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information," the letter read.


          Any idea why CNN didn't show the letter?

          A copy of the letter can be found here:

          https://www.businessinsider.com/whit...ication-2020-1

          The second paragraph shows what needs to be done.....wonder why CNN is trying to mislead the public.......again.



        • wolfhnd
          wolfhnd commented
          Editing a comment
          Why would anyone even use CNN?

        • Nichols
          Nichols commented
          Editing a comment
          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          Why would anyone even use CNN?
          Because they attack Trump regularly with fake news or like this case, misleading news.

      • #34
        Yesterday Alan Dershowitz stood on the floor of the US Senate advocating for unrestricted presidential power, contrary to the US Constitution and to the interests of the people and the country. This is nuts, to be blunt.

        1.https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/polit...-29/index.html


        President Donald Trump's impeachment lawyer Alan Dershowitz on Wednesday rolled out a novel and very Trumpian legal argument in his client's defense: The President's personal interest is the national interest when he's up for reelection.


        The logic here is that Trump believes his reelection is what's best for the country, so therefore whatever he does to secure a second term is, by definition, in the national interest. That's despite the fact that what he did was hold up US aid, approved by Congress, as leverage to get the investigation he wanted into former Vice President Joe Biden, his potential 2020 rival.

        2.https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/polit...ion/index.html


        Impeachment was meant to punish Donald Trump's unrestrained use of his authority, but the grounds on which Republican senators plan to acquit him may instead give him a green light to use his power however he wants to win reelection.


        Trump's GOP defenders looking to end his Senate trial in the next few days are increasingly arguing that it's time to shut things down because even if Trump is guilty of coercing Ukraine for political favors, such conduct would not be impeachable.

        They are seizing on stunning arguments envisioning almost unchallenged presidential power and highly limited criteria for defining the abuse of power and impeachment laid out by a maverick member of Trump's legal team, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.

        Republican leaders are meanwhile increasingly confident they will have the votes to block Democratic demands for the testimony of new trial witnesses, including John Bolton, who reportedly has information implicating Trump in pressuring Ukraine for political favors.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • Nichols
          Nichols commented
          Editing a comment
          Originally posted by craven View Post

          Actually he did.
          Where/when did he advocate unrestricted presidential power?

          Did he advocate that a president can disband congress?



        • craven
          craven commented
          Editing a comment
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post

          Where/when did he advocate unrestricted presidential power?
          at the moment you say he has to commit a crime that is unrestricted power. when combined with say I am president and I declare homelessness a emergency. Then I take all the DOD money and spend it on that.

          When abuse of power has to be a crime. it means that excutive branch can do whatever it wants. Unless the other party has control of both houses.

          This is con law it not about what you say it the next three jumps in logic that are important.

          Although I will say in general he has a point when it comes to needing something to hang a hat on when doing impeachment. I mean technically congress could impeach presidents for looking at them wrong. That also is also an important concern.

        • Massena
          Massena commented
          Editing a comment
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post

          If you actually watched Dershowitz's presentation, you would know that he didn't advocate unrestricted presidential power. I know CNN is telling you that he did but this is just another case of them quoting out of context.

          Try again.
          I watched and he most certainly was preaching unlimited presidential power. You are once again forgiving/accepting anything from Trump and his gang.

      • #35
        Yet another unsupported accusation.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #36
          Originally posted by Massena View Post
          Yet another unsupported accusation.
          Completely supported, the link provides that.

          You have been complaining the Trump gave Russia classified information for some time now. Here, Bolton is attempting to publish classified information in his book......and you are okay with that?

          Why?
          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

          Comment


          • #37
            When did I say I was 'OK' with what Bolton has published regarding classified material?

            And passing classified information to the Russians in the Oval Office with no American present is something quite different.

            There you go, excusing whatever Trump does or says once again.
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #38
              Originally posted by Massena View Post
              And passing classified information to the Russians in the Oval Office with no American present is something quite different.
              What classified information was passed?

              Try to get beyond......'but it's Trump'
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #39
                https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

                Hours after the Senate voted against seeking new evidence in the impeachment case against President Trump, the administration acknowledged the existence of two dozen emails that could reveal the president’s thinking about withholding military aid to Ukraine.

                In a midnight court filing, the Justice Department explained why it shouldn’t have to unredact copies of more than 100 emails written by officials at the Office of Management and Budget and the Defense Department about the hold on funds to Ukraine.

                Heather Walsh, an OMB lawyer, wrote that of the 111 redacted emails in the lawsuit, 24 are protected by “presidential privilege.”

                “Specifically, the documents in this category are emails that reflect communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President’s immediate advisors regarding Presidential ­decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine,” Walsh wrote.

                Democrats spent much of the Senate impeachment trial imploring GOP senators to allow new evidence in the case against Trump.

                In the weeks since the December House vote to impeach the president, new evidence against him has emerged, including reports that former White House national security adviser John Bolton says there was a quid pro quo conditioning the aid on investigations by Ukraine that could help the president politically.

                Trump and administration officials repeatedly stonewalled the House impeachment probe, refusing to allow some witnesses to testify and to provide requested documents.

                Ultimately Democrats could persuade only two Republicans that more evidence was needed. On Friday, the Senate voted 51 to 49 to block new witnesses and documents, clearing the way for Trump’s acquittal this week.

                Democrats are likely to seize on the new court filing as proof that the trial was incomplete and thus invalid.

                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • Cambronnne
                  Cambronnne commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Originally posted by Tsar View Post


                  So you’re saying that if the Dems had done the job right and taken their time in the investigation this information would have been available?
                  Maybe they should have done it right than shouldn’t they?
                  Maybe they shouldn’t have rushed to impeach Trump?
                  Maybe they should have taken the time to get the witnesses even if they had to go to court to override the executive privilege claims?

                  I guess that the Dems brought this on themselves with their false claims that Trump represented such a threat to the republic that they just couldn’t wait (except for the 33 days it took Nancy to turtle walk it over to the senate).


                  Somehow, they are going to work out a way to blame this on trump. Trump didn't make them rush the process and ignore the chance to conduct the investigation they suddenly claim is needed.

                  Does anyone else have a problem with the effort to claim that emails that haven't been seen contain the holy grail of evidence against trump?
                  Isn't this the same BS we've been fed for 3 years? Every few weeks they trot out the same, lame BS that this new claim will bring trump down.
                  And somehow they expect us to still take them seriously?

                • Cambronnne
                  Cambronnne commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                  Of course everyone implicitly trusts Donald Trump and his administration with wide-ranging powers to unilaterally decide who needs to know what at any given juncture.

                  Not least since clearly the power of oversight over the president and his government vested in the legislative branch relies implicitly on the judgement of the president and the administration.

                  And why not, since it's legal representatives has now expressly laid out that whatever the president judges to be in the national interest of getting him re-elected is by nature both legal and entirely up to the judgement of the president?
                  Sigh.
                  The only way for trump to assert his right to privilege is to claim it.
                  Then it is up to the dems to challenge it in court. The courts still exist last I checked

                  Are you saying we shouldn't trust trump's view but should trust the dems view on the claim?

                  The dems always had the right to challenge trump's claim in court.

                  They chose not to. As a result, they pretty much waived the claim he is wrong.

                • Nichols
                  Nichols commented
                  Editing a comment
                  .........'but its Trump!!!!'

              • #40
                Seems that the trees are stronger than the wall sections...

                https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/vira...cid=spartandhp
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • T. A. Gardner
                  T. A. Gardner commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Maybe you should delve into the subject a bit more... The winds were 37 mph gusting up to 50. The wall sections that fell over were just set and in uncured concrete "green" (eg., wet) concrete.

                • OttoHarkaman
                  OttoHarkaman commented
                  Editing a comment
                  A thick wall of Adobe bricks topped by a prickly-pear hedge and maybe some cattle horns would have worked just fine.

                • T. A. Gardner
                  T. A. Gardner commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
                  A thick wall of Adobe bricks topped by a prickly-pear hedge and maybe some cattle horns would have worked just fine.
                  I already suggested a half-mile or so of this along the border:

                  https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2724/...328969cd_z.jpg

                  You'd have to be insane to try and walk through that. That jumping cholla would be all over you in the first 100 yards.

              • #41
                More liberal propaganda, that section of the wall is not a recent addition.
                My worst jump story:
                My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                No lie.

                ~
                "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                Comment


                • #42
                  These accusations are not going away...

                  https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/polit...nvs/index.html
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • Nichols
                    Nichols commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post

                    My quote shows that I am consistent
                    Your quote shows that you are consistently redirecting.

                    No matter how much you continue this lie, it won't change the fact that in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty.

                    I give you permission to try again.


                  • pamak
                    pamak commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                    Your quote shows that you are consistently redirecting.

                    No matter how much you continue this lie, it won't change the fact that in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty.

                    I give you permission to try again.
                    My quotes show that you are unable to provide facts to support your claims

                    If you make a decision to spend less time in spamming threads with childish posts and more time in actually reading your Constitution to learn its principles, you will not find yourself in the future in such embarrassing situation to let an immigrant like me expose the deficiency of your constitutional knowledge. I suggest you start with the First Amendment and then come back to argue that it is unconstitutional to call a politician a liar!

                    By the way, did you just violate the principle that I am innocent until proven guilty when you said that I "continue this lie"?
                    Hint, the above question is sarcasm which does not require an answer to show the absurdity of your claim.
                    Last edited by pamak; 12 Mar 20, 20:21.

                  • CarpeDiem
                    CarpeDiem commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Enough is enough
                    thread closed
                    ACG Staff

                • #43
                  The stock market took a big hit today, and there is now an oil 'argument' between Russia and Saudi Arabia. And the Coronavirus is still spreading...

                  1.https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...cid=spartandhp
                  There are rare moments when the world economy seems to be reconfiguring itself beneath our feet. These can be startlingly fast bursts, not obvious to people who are just going about their business, but glaringly so to those who interpret the moves of financial markets.

                  2.https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...cid=spartandhp

                  Global markets are volatile. Supply-chain disruptions are piling up. Economists are slashing forecasts. Investors are fleeing to the safety of bonds. The coronavirus epidemic is a public-health crisis, and it is morphing into an economic crisis, too.

                  3.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/co...cid=spartandhp


                  The virus continues to spread across the U.S.

                  The United States faces an accelerating pace of new coronavirus case reports as well as the prospect of more sweeping measures to fight the spread of the virus. On Monday, the national total of infections approached 600, doubling since Friday.

                  A number of new cases have raised concerns about transmission in public places.

                  4.https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...cid=spartandhp

                  The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank more than 2,000 points Monday, notching its worst day since 2008 as market angst over the spread of the novel coronavirus and a new oil price war sent investors scrambling for safety.

                  5.https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...cid=spartandhp

                  President Donald Trump said Monday that falling oil prices are good for consumers while he blamed the media and Russia and Saudi Arabia "arguing over the price and flow of oil" for sharply declining stock prices.
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • ljadw
                    ljadw commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post

                    I think that there is no rationale to exclude the UK from travel when half of Europe have less cases per capita.
                    Again wrong : half of Europe has more cases per capita . Besides,cases per capita are meaningless .

                  • Massena
                    Massena commented
                    Editing a comment
                    And the US stock market continues to drop:

                    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...cid=spartandhp
                    Futures contracts tied to the major U.S. stock indexes dove early Thursday after an address from President Donald Trump failed to quell concerns over the possible economic slowdown from the coronavirus.

                    Futures on the Dow Jones Industrial average, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 all hit the so-called limit down threshold at one point, off by more than 5%, before paring those losses slightly. At last count, the Dow futures were right at that threshold, which halts trading. Dow futures implied a loss of more than 1,100 points at the open. S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 futures were off by 4.8%.

                    Exchanges halt trading of futures contracts if they drop by more than 5%, acting as a floor for selling until regular trading resumes at the opening bell at 9:30 a.m. ET. After stocks open in regular trading, the S&P 500 must drop by 7% before triggering the New York Stock Exchange’s circuit breaker, which halts trading temporarily.

                    Thursday was the second time this week that exchanges were forced to halt futures trading prior to the market open: Futures hit a similar “limit down” prior to the opening of normal trading Monday morning. Later that day, the S&P 500 also hit NYSE’s 7% circuit breaker and the Dow fell more than 2,000 points.

                  • Massena
                    Massena commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Is Pence finally standing on his own two feet instead of merely mouthing what Trump says on the pandemic?

                    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp
                    Vice President Mike Pence said Thursday that there has been "irresponsible rhetoric" from people who have downplayed the seriousness of the U.S.
                    coronavirus outbreak.


                    In an interview on the "TODAY" show, Savannah Guthrie asked what message Pence sends to people who aren't afraid of the coronavirus and think it's just politics and hype, quoting from President Donald Trump on Monday that the "fake news media and their partner, the Democrat Party, is doing everything to inflame the coronavirus situation."

                    "Well, obviously there's been some irresponsible rhetoric," Pence said without directly naming Trump.

                    Pence, the head of the president's coronavirus task force, added, "The American people should know that President Trump has no higher priority than the health and safety and well-being of the people of this country."

                    The administration, he continued, will focus on communities that have experienced community spread of the virus and he said Trump's action a day earlier, suspending travel from Europe to the U.S., is "one more example of how he's putting the health of America first."


                • #44
                  And this is from the Mueller investigation:

                  https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/10/polit...ury/index.html


                  The House of Representatives has won access to secret grand jury material gathered in former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and cited in the Mueller report, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday.


                  The ruling may breathe new life into a House Judiciary Committee investigation into President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice, which failed to gain steam since Mueller issued his report on Trump and testified last summer and since the White House has blocked administration witnesses from appearing before Congress.

                  The appeals panel sided with an earlier ruling from the chief judge of the DC District Court, who had roundly criticized the Justice Department's legal theories to keep the Mueller materials under seal and who had endorsed the House's investigation into President Trump. The appeals court agreed that the House Judiciary Committee has a "compelling need" to view the secretive details prosecutors had collected from witnesses and about the President.
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • Cambronnne
                    Cambronnne commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                    The reason the term innocent is used, is that the standard is innocent until proven guilty. Since you cannot prove innocence, in the eyes of the law one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So an acquittal is innocent in the eyes of the law.

                    Agreed.
                    Innocent until proven guilty is the standard. If the government cannot prove guilt, then the person remains innocent.
                    I know you understand this.




                  • pamak
                    pamak commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                    What you describe is specifically what happened to OJ Simpson. He was acquitted in criminal court, and found liable in civil court, as there are two completely different standards of proof between the two court systems.

                    However, none of this has anything to do with the OP topic, as impeachment is a political process that would like to wrap itself in the trappings of criminal court.....mostly because criminal trial courts have generally the most respect amongst the populace at large for the validity of a conviction when they convict.
                    First, the issue related to the Mueller investigation did not even become an impeachment issue.

                    Second, the latest impeachment did not wrap itself in the trappings of criminal court.

                    So, the whole discussion about the meaning of an acquittal has nothing to do with the OP.

                    This does not mean though that one can make the claim that "not guilty" is the same with saying "innocent," and expect it to pass unchallenged just because it is not related to the OP and in contrast of the clear evidence I gave from the Law School of Cornell University which, by the way, also mentions Simpson's case to show the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent"

                    Acquittal

                    Primary tabs

                    Definition


                    At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a
                    reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent. Thus, a person may be acquitted of a crime but found civilly liable in a civil case regarding that same crime, e.g. O.J. Simpson, because civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal cases.



                    If you want to talk about the OP topic, then you may want to share your comments regarding what Mueller actually said in his report. Again, you may have noticed that one poster made claims about Mueller's supposedly conclusions regarding Trump's culpability which contradict Mueller's record.
                    Last edited by pamak; 16 Mar 20, 07:18.

                  • pamak
                    pamak commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                    Agreed.
                    Innocent until proven guilty is the standard. If the government cannot prove guilt, then the person remains innocent.
                    I know you understand this.


                    That standard is guidance for evaluating the evidence with respect to who has the burden of proof. That standard ends with the jury deliberation. Thus, a decision of "not guilty," cannot be equated to "innocence" based on that standard. I also mentioned that "presumably innocent" can still be legally held in jail for the duration of the trial. In short, such presumption does not mean that a person cannot be suspected of wrongdoing or that he is treated in the same way the law treats an unrelated innocent person.
                    Last edited by pamak; 16 Mar 20, 08:08.

                • #45
                  Once again, Diane Ravitch hits the nail on the head regarding education in the United States:

                  From the article 'Tests did not save schools, but money could.' This is in Time Magazine, 17 February 2020, page 25:

                  'The education -reform movement that started with George W Bush's No Child Left Behind las has failed to improve education. Its narrow emphasis on standardized testing has failed. From Bush's No Child Left Behind to Barack Obama's Race to the Top to Donald Trump's push for school choice, the reformers have come up empty handed. '

                  'These 'reformers' relied on the business idea that disruption is a positive good. Reformers have historically called for more funding, better-trained teachers, desegregation, smaller class sizes. The disrupters however, banked on a strategy of testing, competition, and punishment...'

                  '...Children and schools need stability, not disruption. They need experienced teachers and well-maintained schools. All of this is common sense. These are reforms that work.'

                  And Diane Ravitch is exactly on point.
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • ljadw
                    ljadw commented
                    Editing a comment
                    I thought that the Constitution said that education was a problem for and the competence of the States,and not of the Swamp .

                    Stupid me : using the Constitution as a source .

                  • Massena
                    Massena commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Where does the Constitution say that?

                  • ljadw
                    ljadw commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Originally posted by Massena View Post
                    Where does the Constitution say that?
                    10A : All powers not specifically granted to the Federal government belong to the states/to the people .
                    As there is no article in the Constitution that gives DC the right to interfere with education, this means that education belongs to the states exclusively .
                    Undelegated powers are kept to the states and the people .Education is an undelegated power .

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X