|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 22:22:38 GMT -5
I am referring to provable facts, not “views”. I avoid watching spin on media propaganda TV. Both left and right. Just curious and honest question, where do you get your news from? I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 19:53:43 GMT -5
I am referring to provable facts, not “views”. I avoid watching spin on media propaganda TV. Both left and right.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 13:13:38 GMT -5
You are, respectfully, twisting yourself in a pretzel to justify vilification if a person based upon his apparent religious views. I do not think it is proper to do so. Do you agree with the concept of freedom of religion and association? Or are such rights reserved only for those with whom you agree? I have no knowledge if Trump paid for an abortion in the past — even if he did please explain how this justifies vilification of a person like this teenager? I don't know where you are getting all of the vilification stuff from, the only thing I've said is that the teen shouldn't have worn a MAGA hat at a March for Life Rally because Donald Trump pays for abortions. If you read the reason.com article, you will see the vilification of the students to which I am referring. Comparisons to the KKK, “raised in hate”
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 12:24:41 GMT -5
So please do not deflect by referring to Fox - it suggests that you seek to evade a discussion of the facts. We answered your questions. Does it makes sense to wear MAGA gear to a Rally for Life given the number of abortions that Donald Trump has paid for? You are, respectfully, twisting yourself in a pretzel to justify vilification if a person based upon his apparent religious views. I do not think it is proper to do so. Do you agree with the concept of freedom of religion and association? Or are such rights reserved only for those with whom you agree? I have no knowledge if Trump paid for an abortion in the past — even if he did please explain how this justifies vilification of a person like this teenager?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 12:16:36 GMT -5
Reminder: millions of Americans do not believe that birtherism is false or defamatory. I have no idea what your response means. More evasion. I have a problem with vilifying a teenager because of his political and religious views. My view has nothing to go with “birtherism”. But again, I applaud you for at least being honest enough to admit that you approve the vilification of a teenager whom you do not know based upon his political and religious views.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 11:26:38 GMT -5
I would not know. Fox News is right wing propaganda, just like CNN and MSNBC are left wing propaganda. I try to find actual facts through original source research, as the mainstream/legacy media, including Fox, are nothing more than mouthpieces for political view points. Depending on the news of the day, I check at 9:00 pm to see what those 3 news channels are saying about a particular news of the day and how they cover/spin it. Your views expressed here are almost 100% in line with Fox News. My views here are based upon facts and fairness. I could not care less if they supposedly align with Fox News. I cited an article written by an author on a site that is generally libertarian in nature, and is very critical of Trump on trade and immigration. So please do not deflect by referring to Fox - it suggests that you seek to evade a discussion of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 10:58:48 GMT -5
I said nothing about the racial aspect because I think it's muddy and was propelled by Russian social media amplification, and no one covered themselves in glory. I mostly blame the school's chaplains for having 0 common sense though. I watched the video and three or four times a chaperone pushed kids back to maintain physical distance, but did nothing to stop any of the interaction even knowing that people were recording it on both sides. The school deserves the black eye it got here because the chaperones let it all happen. My bigger point is this - if you think abortion is murder and you're marching against abortion and you wear MAGA stuff - you're just like a Patriots fan wearing Aaron Hernandez gear. You are telling the world that murder is okay if the guy plays for your team. The only difference is the Patriots are an amoral, cheating organization that would self police people who would try to wear a Hernandez jersey to Gilette and stop them from doing that and the Republican Party/conservatives are amoral cheaters that don't have the self discipline to police themselves like that. So you blame the “chaplains“, and not the Black Hebrew Israelites that subjected the students to incessant racist, homophobic and they get it verbal abuse? Yes, the ones who told the black student in the group that his white classmates were going to harvest his organs? You ascribe no blame to the Native American activist who approached the students, and got in one teenager’s face, yelling and being a drum loudly or the Native American activists screaming “go back to Europe”?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 10:55:17 GMT -5
The kid was at a march for life rally and wearing a MAGA hat. He deserves all the he got. Well, at least you’re honest enough to state your candid opinion that this individual should be the subject of false and defamatory stories because of his political viewpoints. You prove my point regarding the left…
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 10:54:12 GMT -5
The rest of your response is sheer gibberish. Which leads the reasonable person to believe that you rushed to judgment and bought the incorrect media spin simply cause of your ingrained biases. What is Fox News saying about it? I would not know. Fox News is right wing propaganda, just like CNN and MSNBC are left wing propaganda. I try to find actual facts through original source research, as the mainstream/legacy media, including Fox, are nothing more than mouthpieces for political view points.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 7:19:43 GMT -5
Nothing says "I respect the dignity of life" more than wearing the gear of an opportunistic hustler who paid to hush up his abortions two years ago and who throws babies in cages as a political strategy. You can tell me all you want you're marching for something but I see what you are wearing, and you are basically telling the world you support gorilla domination politics, rather than the right to life. Wearing Trump gear to a Right to Life march is kind of like going to a Patriots game in an Aaron Hernandez jersey in 2018. I think it says a lot about the march itself that you see so much red. Just like the Buzzfeed Cohen article, everyone jumped to conclusions all because Trump was involved, either directly or indirectly. The Media Wildly Mischaracterized That Video of Covington Catholic Students Confronting a Native American Veteran - reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 17:19:10 GMT -5
How about Weissman attending the Clinton election “party” at the Javit’s Center on Election Night. And Rhee representation of Clinton? Look up appearance of impropriety as you seem not to recognize this principle. Woah, no way. He went to a Clinton party, how can he be a fair person..... Great point. Your opinion of what is improper isn’t *proof of anything and it’s clear you have a very liberal view of what’s improper in this situation. I’ll ask you one more time. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann,Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? Just one. This isn’t a difficult question to answer. You are now into the realm of wilful obtuseness. You refuse to even acknowledge improper conduct by your hero Strozk or the appearance of impropriety of Muller team member Rhee. Peace out.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 17:15:35 GMT -5
Trumpers care about the appearance of impropriety? Not a “Trumper”. I am not a liberal either. I am just trying to understand why the left has become the party of spying on domestic opponents, deifying the FBI and CIA, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 15:54:22 GMT -5
1) When did I defend their *personal conduct 54? 2) No, I think your overselling it by a large margin and it's largely inconsequential. You’re arguing Weissman is compromised because he praised Yates decision on the travel ban. That's an absurd opinion. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann,Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? The fact you can't answer this basic question is what speaks volumes. 3) You don't know that Ken Starr and his deputies expressed negative opinions on the Clintons? NYFBI? I have a hard time believing you, but there's documented evidence of that. 4) Except it doesn't. Sessions said he would recuse himself in his confirmation hearing, but he didn't do that fully, did he? Also Jeff Sessions: "Lock her up" Explain? How about Weissman attending the Clinton election “party” at the Javit’s Center on Election Night. And Rhee representation of Clinton? Look up appearance of impropriety as you seem not to recognize this principle.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 13:16:19 GMT -5
See my post above re: Horowitz report re: Strozk/Page. And the appearance of impropriety with Weissman, Rhee, et al is major problem. The whole point of not a having a person with bias involved is to maintain the appearance of an impartial, fair process. If persons without bias are not involved in a matter then we avoid the messy issue of proving whether a bias affects the outcome. The remedy is to avoid the problem in the first place by appointing a neutral person. Any person with knowledge of this concept would agree, but again, we seem to suspend such basic concepts so long as DT is the target. Is this equal justice under the law? Bottom line: An investigation should be fair no matter who it helps or hurts. We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on this, however. I have tried to form my opinions without regard to who the target is. I am not a Hillary supporter yet thought that Comey acted improperly when he revealed investigative results despite not charging her with a crime. This was a violation of Justice Dept rules. I am willing to say this irrespective of my political views. I just wish that others could do so. Nowhere in the Horowitz report did it say the investigation was tainted. Nowhere in the Horowitz report are Weissman and Rhee even mentioned, but you keep grouping them together for some reason. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann, Rhee, Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? Speaking of "short memories" are you familiar with a gentleman named Kenneth Starr? Jeff Sessions? NY division of the FBI? Do you think any of those people might have held personal biases against a certain person they were investigating? 1. The fact that you are even trying to defend the Strozk Page misconduct speaks volumes. 2. With all due respect you are evading the issue of appearance of impropriety regarding Weissman and Rhee. I did not contend that they are mentioned in the IG report. 3. I cannot read the mind of Starr but if your point is that he was biased then that does not excuse the roles of Weissman and Rhee. 4. As long as you bring up Sessions that proves the point. He was potentially conflicted so he refused himself. So too should Weissman and Rhee should never been allowed near this investigation. And again, if the 2020 Democratic candidate is being investigated will it be perfectly fine with you if Rudy Giuliani is on the team despite being Trump’s attorney? Rhee = Rudy here.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 11:52:30 GMT -5
No, the point I’m making is even if you think that, that doesn’t mean the investigation is tainted. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann,Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? Do you think all of the people investigating the Clintons did so with pure hearts and had no internal opinions of them? Finally, where is the proof of what you said earlier? jld54 I’ll assume it was an honest mistake on your part that you responded to the same comment twice and chose to ignore this. Can you give an answer here? See my post above re: Horowitz report re: Strozk/Page. And the appearance of impropriety with Weissman, Rhee, et al is major problem. The whole point of not a having a person with bias involved is to maintain the appearance of an impartial, fair process. If persons without bias are not involved in a matter then we avoid the messy issue of proving whether a bias affects the outcome. The remedy is to avoid the problem in the first place by appointing a neutral person. Any person with knowledge of this concept would agree, but again, we seem to suspend such basic concepts so long as DT is the target. Is this equal justice under the law? Bottom line: An investigation should be fair no matter who it helps or hurts. We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on this, however. I have tried to form my opinions without regard to who the target is. I am not a Hillary supporter yet thought that Comey acted improperly when he revealed investigative results despite not charging her with a crime. This was a violation of Justice Dept rules. I am willing to say this irrespective of my political views. I just wish that others could do so.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 11:41:46 GMT -5
For those with a short memory:
IG Horowitz report:
We were deeply troubled by text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it” in response to her question “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”, it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.
I submit that in any other circumstance you would be outraged and would agree that this was a serious problem. But since the hated Trump is the target, it is just fine. Trump will be gone in 2 or 6 years -- or shorter if your desires are met -- but do you agree that this behavior is outrageous, if the target wasn't Trump?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 9:32:23 GMT -5
Is it better to have those investigating you to be for you or against you? Would it be preferable to have pro-Trump people investigating him? If you're innocent, it shouldn't matter much. If you're completely clean, you'd probably prefer those who are against you to try to find you guilty of anything. Regardless, as investigators and not defense attorneys, their political affiliations shouldn't matter very much. It's a convenient misdirection that an attorney might use in a trial but this isn't a trial. It's an investigation. There's no jury to convince. And it's pretty difficult to spin a paper trail or recordings where the goal isn't winning a case but finding evidence. Investigators should not be biased for against. True?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 19, 2019 18:35:27 GMT -5
Rich, Part of the problem is that you're wildly inconsistent even within your last several posts. First off, Americans of "good will" can't be for the majority of Trump's policies, including this ridiculous shutdown. Second, the "history's longest smear job" needs to be wrapped up but you're fine with the investigation. The investigation length is dictated by what is being uncovered. If you want to be upset about the length, be angry at those being investigated for suspect and felonious behavior. Have we lost "common sense" and the "ability to work together"? Well, the Dems went to Trump with a plan for re-opening the government and funding for border security and Trump walked out of the room. Trump is attempting to extort $5.7 billion from the American people for a wall that he promised they'd not have to pay for by lying about a crisis that doesn't exist and holding the paychecks of 800k Americans hostage. I'm not sure what part of that is connected to working together or common sense. But, apparently, you're not bothered by Trump's part in that. I'm not saying the Dems should do more. But one side is willing to negotiate. The other is not. I understand that you've enjoyed your tax break. Great for you. I hope it has positively impacted your life. You should, however, realize what it's costing many, many, many people both in this country and at our border. Not to mention the hit our country's reputation has taken abroad. The issue is that millions of Americans feel it is much more important to focus on citizens of this country and not “people at the border” or the opinion of people abroad. This is the existential issue of our times.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 19, 2019 15:10:36 GMT -5
The Weissmann comments refer to the political bias on the Myeller team. Al a Jennie Rhee. Will respond re: insurance policy later . But in the meantime, Ponder the significance of Pete’s text to Lisa Where and he stated that around election time he had been in southern Virginia, and could smell the stench of Trump supporters. And then ask yourself, is this a truly objective investigator, or is it, perhaps, a person with an agenda? As a trial attorney with nearly 40 years of experience, we always look for bias on the part of a witness. Please tell me whether you believe, objectively, that comments like these, and many others, do not bear upon the credibility of, and integrity of, these people? Ok, but none of this is "proof" of what you stated. It's not even close. As a trial attorney with 40 years of experience certainly you know that. Do you think every person who investigated the Clintons had a pure heart and no prior biases? Do you think they were all "objective investigators?" It's absurd to think that. Cops, lawyers, judges all have opinions just like every other human on this planet. Having an opinion isn't improper. As a lawyer do you let your opinions effect your work, or do you follow the law as written? There is a concept known as the appearance of impropriety. I believe that Mueller has crossed the line by using these people. They have a clear animus against the target. I think that he was fully able to staff a team with qualified persons who have not demonstrated bias against the target of an inherently political investigation. For example, the IG found multiple improprieties in the Clinton investigation, yet Mueller just happens to hire the lawyer for HRC herself and the Clinton Foundation. Really? Orange Man has been proven guilty of one crime, the one that really matters: beating the Republican and Democratic establish as an outsider. He exposed the utter complacency and corruption of the bipartisan ruling cadre, and for this he must be punished. And I do not hold this view on a partisan basis -- both parties want him gone. The idiotic R establishment put hundreds of millions behind Jeb!, thinking that the country would accept a third Bush, especially after the disastrous Bush 43 presidency? And the Ds picked Hillary because "it was her turn", colluded against Sanders, and then she ran one of the worst campaigns in recent history. She ignored WI, MI but went to GA and AZ? And her idiotic comment about deplorables killed her -- it was worse than Romney's 47% comment, if that was at all possible. To be clear, Trump is a very flawed human being, but so were many others -- e.g, Bill C. getting a BJ from a 22 year old intern under the desk in the Oval Office?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 19, 2019 14:07:30 GMT -5
Wut? This is innuendo, not proof. Can you define precisely what their "insurance policy" is? How does Weissmann praising Sally Yates for not enforcing a travel ban t= "the MCCabe/Strozk/Page insurance policy morphing into Mueller investigation.?" The Weissmann comments refer to the political bias on the Myeller team. Al a Jennie Rhee. Will respond re: insurance policy later . But in the meantime, Ponder the significance of Pete’s text to Lisa Where and he stated that around election time he had been in southern Virginia, and could smell the stench of Trump supporters. And then ask yourself, is this a truly objective investigator, or is it, perhaps, a person with an agenda? As a trial attorney with nearly 40 years of experience, we always look for bias on the part of a witness. Please tell me whether you believe, objectively, that comments like these, and many others, do not bear upon the credibility of, and integrity of, these people? So you do not deny that Weissmann,Strzok, Page, Rhee etcal are biased against their target on a political basis, but that is OK. I respectfully disagree. And as an attorney I advocate my position within the bounds of law and ethics. I am not an investigator. Again I suggest that if persons who are openly biased against a candidate and President whom you liked you may not feel the same way as you do because you hate Trump. Cmon, admit it...😃
|
|