Quote from: Savant on January 30, 2018, 11:07:15 amQuote from: Mr.DeMartino on January 30, 2018, 10:51:18 amAgain, if Russian bots are so effective, why isn't Russia the next Madison Av. and why isn't the Russian economy dominating?Corruption, power of Putin and the Oligarchs under Putin’s control.That doesn't make sense. If you think all those things are true whether it comes to political or economic influence then Russia would either be powerful at both or marginal at both. I think if you do an analtsis that takes into account all the different cariables of the election, it would show Russian influence did not have an effect on voter's decisions , which would be consistent with it's lack of influence in economics and advertising.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on January 30, 2018, 10:51:18 amAgain, if Russian bots are so effective, why isn't Russia the next Madison Av. and why isn't the Russian economy dominating?Corruption, power of Putin and the Oligarchs under Putin’s control.
Again, if Russian bots are so effective, why isn't Russia the next Madison Av. and why isn't the Russian economy dominating?
I wanted to see what my options were. I press and challenge my advisors and throw out different options (A-B testing, which Trump has consistently used throughout his campaign). Once I was satisfied that it was not advisable/permissible, I moved onto other options.
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate
Quote I wanted to see what my options were. I press and challenge my advisors and throw out different options (A-B testing, which Trump has consistently used throughout his campaign). Once I was satisfied that it was not advisable/permissible, I moved onto other options.You mean once he realized his counsel would QUIT if he went ahead and fired Mueller. Don't try and change the dialogue there making Trump seem like a reasonable person. He wanted to do it but feared backlash from the public if his counsel quit. And witch hunt? Dude, Comey is a Republican. Mueller is a Republican. Once Mueller found out members on his team were texting about Trump he removed them immediately. Its a sad state of affairs when people are defending the Presidents proposal that the FBI is corrupt and has it out for him. Please, Mr D, can you answer this for me? I'll use example three you suggested. If he was merely seeing what his options were. And Trump was satisfied at his counsels advice. Then why deny it? August, 2017 on whether he's thought about firing Mueller. “I haven’t given it any thought,” Trump said. “Well, I’ve been reading about it from you people. You say, ‘Oh, I’m going to dismiss him.’ No, I’m not dismissing anybody.” January. 2018 on trying to fire Mueller- "Fake News folks. Fake news." Its not fake news. Even you are having this conversation about the incident in question. Simple. Why did DJT deny it in August and why is he denying it now?
If his counsel testified under oath to any conversations he had as Trump's counsel, that testimony is worthless as it's priviliged and his attorney would be facing disbarrment. Also, I don't believe the FBI Director or the Soecial Counsel qualifies as an offucer of the court.
Fake news.
QuoteIf his counsel testified under oath to any conversations he had as Trump's counsel, that testimony is worthless as it's priviliged and his attorney would be facing disbarrment. Also, I don't believe the FBI Director or the Soecial Counsel qualifies as an offucer of the court.First, Nixon vs U.S. 1974 the supreme court ruled that when it comes to grand jury inquiries, attorneys can wave the right of attorney client privilege if they deem necessary. 1997 8th circuit, 1998 D.C. circuit, and 2002 7th circuit all ruled on this. 2005, however, 2nd circuit ruled in the opposite so this issue of attorney client privilege isn't a White and Black issue. Government attorney's can testify on conversations pertaining to government officials i.e. the president. Officer of the court defined as: "any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts."Both the former FBI director and Robert Mueller fit under this category.As for Trump denying it or giving evasive answers I say this. Who cares what public opinion or the media thinks about his answers to the question "did you try and fire Mueller?" I want YOUR opinion. Why do you think he denied it? Trump surely doesn't care about public opinion and the news is all fake. What is your opinion on why he denied it?One last question. Why did President Trump not impose the new sanctions that have veto-proof bipartisan support in both houses? Sure the Treasury department put out a list of billionaires and government officials close to Putin. A list that Mnuchin even agreed his department used Forbes magazine as a source LOLOLOL! Moscow's PR campaign of anger of the public list is laughable. The Kremlin cares about money and Trump just decided against the veto-proof majority of house/senate members? The signs are ALL there for you to see how dirty this guy is but somehow benefit of the doubt is given to him.
yeah weighs.........so what? When someone types something that isn't what they meant, or says something they didn't mean...........people LOVE to jump on it.What if Trump is a human who changes his mind a lot...........who cares? Oh yeah, you do.............
Quote from: parkerynp on January 31, 2018, 09:01:04 amQuoteIf his counsel testified under oath to any conversations he had as Trump's counsel, that testimony is worthless as it's priviliged and his attorney would be facing disbarrment. Also, I don't believe the FBI Director or the Soecial Counsel qualifies as an offucer of the court.First, Nixon vs U.S. 1974 the supreme court ruled that when it comes to grand jury inquiries, attorneys can wave the right of attorney client privilege if they deem necessary. 1997 8th circuit, 1998 D.C. circuit, and 2002 7th circuit all ruled on this. 2005, however, 2nd circuit ruled in the opposite so this issue of attorney client privilege isn't a White and Black issue. Government attorney's can testify on conversations pertaining to government officials i.e. the president. Officer of the court defined as: "any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts."Both the former FBI director and Robert Mueller fit under this category.As for Trump denying it or giving evasive answers I say this. Who cares what public opinion or the media thinks about his answers to the question "did you try and fire Mueller?" I want YOUR opinion. Why do you think he denied it? Trump surely doesn't care about public opinion and the news is all fake. What is your opinion on why he denied it?One last question. Why did President Trump not impose the new sanctions that have veto-proof bipartisan support in both houses? Sure the Treasury department put out a list of billionaires and government officials close to Putin. A list that Mnuchin even agreed his department used Forbes magazine as a source LOLOLOL! Moscow's PR campaign of anger of the public list is laughable. The Kremlin cares about money and Trump just decided against the veto-proof majority of house/senate members? The signs are ALL there for you to see how dirty this guy is but somehow benefit of the doubt is given to him.Did McGhan specifically testify on legal advice he gave to Trump as his counsel? I don't see anything in the record that said he did. It would take A LOT for his lawyer to do so and would be a massive bombshell.FBI officers are not officers of the court. I'm not sure about the special counsel, but I don't believe they qualify due to how they are appointed.I don't know why Trump denied it, I'm not a mind reader, but if you think the ONLY reason he could have done it was because he was guilty, you are putting Trump into an impossible situation- if he denies it, he's guilty. If he admits it he's guilty. That's not logical. It means you are biased against Trump and are not thinking rationally.As for Russian sanctions, again many reasons are possible not all of which involve guilt.If I had to guess- it's probably to bait Democrats into continue yapping and focusing their attention on Russia and not say, putting forth a coherant plan in health care or some issue that could actually win an election.
As for Russian sanctions, again many reasons are possible not all of which involve guilt.If I had to guess- it's probably to bait Democrats into continue yapping and focusing their attention on Russia and not say, putting forth a coherant plan in health care or some issue that could actually win an election.
Whose going to start the thread about the fantastic state of the union speech ?
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on Yesterday at 01:40:32 PM Trump is a liar and a con man.
Quote from Mr.DeMartino on June 14, 2019 at 02:28:07 pmDonald Trump is a lying sack of shit
#releasethememoDepartment of Justice (Rod Rosenstein...a Trump appointee) and FBI director (Christopher Wray...a Trump appointee) urge the WH to not release the Nunes memo because it is misleading, contains inaccurate information, and contains classified information that could be damaging to national security interests. Republicans and President are set on releasing it anyway. Republicans/President VS the DOJ and FBI. How can two Trump appointees be at the forefront of a massive conspiracy against Trump????? This is a set up to discredit Rosenstein (overseeing the Mueller investigation). If/When this happens Trump will have the "credibility" to fire Rosenstein. If/When that happens Trump will put someone in place to oversee the Mueller investigation. What does that mean? That person can stymie, alter, or flat out stop the investigation. Granted this hasn't happened "YET" but the objects are in motion for this to happen. I'm simply trying to predict the future. I hope I am wrong.
Quote from: parkerynp on February 01, 2018, 11:38:04 am#releasethememoDepartment of Justice (Rod Rosenstein...a Trump appointee) and FBI director (Christopher Wray...a Trump appointee) urge the WH to not release the Nunes memo because it is misleading, contains inaccurate information, and contains classified information that could be damaging to national security interests. Republicans and President are set on releasing it anyway. Republicans/President VS the DOJ and FBI. How can two Trump appointees be at the forefront of a massive conspiracy against Trump????? This is a set up to discredit Rosenstein (overseeing the Mueller investigation). If/When this happens Trump will have the "credibility" to fire Rosenstein. If/When that happens Trump will put someone in place to oversee the Mueller investigation. What does that mean? That person can stymie, alter, or flat out stop the investigation. Granted this hasn't happened "YET" but the objects are in motion for this to happen. I'm simply trying to predict the future. I hope I am wrong.The memo might mean something, it might not. My guess? Republicans will believe the worst, Dems believe none, and independents increase skepticism but don't commit. It's ultimately nothing. Above a Veritas video, below an Access Hollywood.Just like Trump-Russia ends up like a Scooter Libby or maybe an Iran Contra.
Indictments Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on June 16, 1992. Weinberger received a pardon from George H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992, before he was tried. Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Adviser, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years of probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush. Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush. Alan D. Fiers, Chief of the CIA's Central American Task Force, convicted of withholding evidence and sentenced to one year probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush. Clair George, Chief of Covert Ops-CIA, convicted on two charges of perjury, but pardoned by President George H. W. Bush before sentencing. Oliver North, member of the National Security Council convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents, but the ruling was overturned since he had been granted immunity. Fawn Hall, Oliver North's secretary, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for her testimony. Jonathan Scott Royster, Liaison to Oliver North, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for his testimony. National Security Advisor John Poindexter was convicted of five counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence. A panel of the D.C. Circuit overturned the convictions on November 15, 1991 by a vote of 2 to 1[99][100] and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Duane Clarridge. An ex-CIA senior official, he was indicted in November 1991 on seven counts of perjury and false statements relating to a November 1985 shipment to Iran. Pardoned before trial by President George H. W. Bush. Richard V. Secord. Former Air Force major general, who was involved in arms transfers to Iran and diversion of funds to Contras, he pleaded guilty in November 1989 to making false statements to Congress and was sentenced to two years of probation. As part of his plea bargain, Secord agreed to provide further truthful testimony in exchange for the dismissal of remaining criminal charges against him. Albert Hakim. A businessman, he pleaded guilty in November 1989 to supplementing the salary of North by buying a $13,800 fence for North with money from "the Enterprise," which was a set of foreign companies Hakim used in Iran-Contra. In addition, Swiss company Lake Resources Inc., used for storing money from arms sales to Iran to give to the Contras, plead guilty to stealing government property. Hakim was given two years of probation and a $5,000 fine, while Lake Resources Inc. was ordered to dissolve.Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988.[108] North, indicted on 16 counts, was found guilty by a jury of three felony counts. The convictions were vacated on appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by the indirect use of his testimony to Congress, which had been given under a grant of immunity. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of conspiracy, lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal on similar grounds. Arthur L. Liman served as chief counsel for the Senate during the Iran–Contra Scandal.
