|
Post by jld54 on May 6, 2019 12:28:13 GMT -5
I take it from your response that the Russians did not provide information to team Trump at this meeting. Also, was this the same meeting that the Russian lawyer met with Fusion GPS head Simpson the day before and the day after this meeting? In the Mueller report it says the Russians DID provide information to Team Trump in that meeting. The Trump campaign didn't find it useful so they didn't use it. I'm getting strong Puthath vibes from you, can you answer my questions now? When is it ok to meet with and adversarial government to obtain dirt on your political opponent, and then subsequently lie to cover it up and conceal the purpose of the meeting? Is that action something law enforcement should look into? Is that something a campaign should be engaged in? I'm legit curious to hear your opinion on this as a Conservative. Mueller found no crime. The Russian pulled a bait and switch and talked about adoptions. I think the meeting was a set up by Fusion and the dopey son took the bait. But as they say, no harm no foul...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 6, 2019 12:18:49 GMT -5
I forget - did Trump team actually receive this info when they met with the Russian attorney? Before I answer I have to ask. Why do you think that matters? It’s a federal crime to seek campaign assistance from a foreign person or government. When is it ok to meet with and adversarial government to obtain dirt on your political opponent, and then subsequently lie to cover it up and conceal the purpose of the meeting? Is that action something law enforcement should look into? I take it from your response that the Russians did not provide information to team Trump at this meeting. Also, was this the same meeting that the Russian lawyer met with Fusion GPS head Simpson the day before and the day after this meeting?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 6, 2019 11:41:14 GMT -5
Amazing these people faced scrutiny for their actions... I forget - did Trump team actually receive this info when they met with the Russian attorney?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 3, 2019 13:07:14 GMT -5
^ At least we finally get to the conspiracy theories.... Nobody who read the report in full has any questions about why the FBI started looking into the Trump campaign. It is also explained in detail in the report. If Loretta Lynch acted like William Barr you guys would have stormed the White House... Yes, after a two-year investigation into whether or not the President is secretly some type of Russian asset, after a special counsel clears him, the people who are interested in investigating how such a thing could happen are the conspiracy theorists. A+ projecting there, as always. When it turns out that there was abuse of government power and improper surveillance (to a criminal level) of political opponents, will you be willing to eat crow or are you going to just flood the board with semi-related tweets by other people and insult anyone attempting to drag you kicking and screaming into reality? Because that's what's going to come out. Scream and cry all you want about it Your unbearable, ubiquitous presence on this board has made it unreadable. But I'm excited to keep an eye on it the next few weeks/months when all the arrogant bluster you've covered the board with for three years turns out to be a 180 from the reality that was happening. Just really looking forward to how you handle it. Fire away buddy, while you still can. It is heartening to see that there is a poster on this board whose outlook differs from the Russian collusion crowd whose echo chamber has dominated this board for the past 2 to 3 years. We went from a President who committed major crimes to a debate over the timing of the release of the report that debunked the Russia collusion story. And after hearing all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how Trump "defied norms", we now have an all-out assault on Barr. Nancy Pelosi alleges perjury and lies, and others call for impeachment, resignation and disbarment. And Rep. Cohen brings a bucket of KFC to the House chamber and eats fried chicken on national TV. My only question is what are the Democrats and media so nervous about? Is it that Barr stated that is examining the predicate for the spying by the Obama administration, and that the inquiry will pre-date 2016?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 3, 2019 7:07:25 GMT -5
This is tempest in a political teapot. This is a preemptive strike by the Democrats against Barr to discredit what the DOJ may find about the predicate for the Obama Administration's surveillance activities.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 2, 2019 12:55:38 GMT -5
Barr exercised appropriate judgement in not releasing the Mueller report piecemeal. He stated that he wished to release the complete Mueller report at one time. He had no obligation to heed Mueller’s request. Mueller is subordinate to the AG and this is the AG’s call. Authoritarianism in a nutshell. The clear right thing to do would have been to release them. They didn't because they want to run a propaganda campaign and cover up all the messy details. The starting point here was you thought the SC made a decision to not make a decision. We don't know that because we don't have the SC summaries and 1/3 of the report is blacked out. I respectfully disagree. The AG has broad discretion as to how to handle the release of the report. AG asked Mueller to redact grand jury information when he delivered the report to allow the AG to release the report promptly. Mueller did not do so, and necessitated a three to four week period for the AG to conduct the review. The AG decided to report the bottom line conclusions of the investigation promptly and release the full report upon completion of the redaction process. He then completed the redaction process with the Muller team and issued the full report. The redactions in the public report comprise under 10% of the report, and these are almost all in the collusion part. The AG has made a version with all but the grand jury material available to key Congressional Committee members. So the claim that a third of the report is blacked out is incorrect. One may disagree with the reasoning of Barr but it is well within his right and responsibility to make this judgment call. Whether Mueller objected to the timing in immaterial as this is not Mueller’s call to make. He is subordinate to the AG in the DOJ. I fail to see how this constitutes “authoritarian” conduct.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 2, 2019 8:53:18 GMT -5
I believe that the SC made a decision not to make a decision. It was not that he “couldn’t” decide. My question is why he would decline this responsibility when he freely undertook to conduct an investigation. You can believe that, but without the SC summaries that were not released so that the AG could carry on a propaganda campaign, how do we know? Barr exercised appropriate judgement in not releasing the Mueller report piecemeal. He stated that he wished to release the complete Mueller report at one time. He had no obligation to heed Mueller’s request. Mueller is subordinate to the AG and this is the AG’s call. This is nothing but a tempest in a political teapot.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 2, 2019 8:49:51 GMT -5
I believe that the SC made a decision not to make a decision. It was not that he “couldn’t” decide. My question is why he would decline this responsibility when he freely undertook to conduct an investigation. Also Barr correctly stated that in addition to being a prosecutor, Murllet, like himself, was an political appointee. What is wrong with being accurate? Mueller is not a political appointee. The whole purpose of the special counsel regulation (28 CFR Section 600) was to remove a Presidential appointee from a conflict of interest. That's why Mueller's position is "outside Special Counsel." A "political appointee" is appointed by the President under the Appointments Clause: [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Mueller is not a "political appointee" as he is an "inferior officer" under the second part of the above-referenced clause appointed by the "Heads of Departments", i.e., the Attorney General, or, in Mueller's case the then-Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. (In fact, there were legal challenged to Mueller's authority since he was not a Presidential appointee but an inferior officer). See www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pd§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel. The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and - (a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1Moreover, Mueller is appointed as a "confidential employee". See 5 U.S.C. Section 7511(b)(2)(C). Barr has never prosecuted a criminal case. His bio indicates he has held clerkships, private practice, and high level policy positions at DOJ but did not ever oversee a litigating division at DOJ during his earlier career there much less try a case himself. www.justice.gov/ag/bio/barr-william-pelhamBarr stated that Mueller was a political appointee in the past, just as Barr is now. Barr did not state that Mueller was a political appointee as SC. Barr thus is correct.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 1, 2019 19:18:32 GMT -5
Have to wonder if Barr even read the entire report. He admitted he never read the underlying evidence in order to reach a non-charging decision. Whereas, SCO conducted the investigation and was wholly familiar with all the underlying evidence yet could not conclude that Trump did NOT obstruct justice. Remarkable. He also wouldn't concede that Mueller was a career federal prosecutor - this coming from a guy who never tried a case in his entire legal career. A REMF. Barr is nothing more than a political hack for Trump. Barr is unifying a wannabe dictator with his unitary executive theory. A dangerous mix. I believe that the SC made a decision not to make a decision. It was not that he “couldn’t” decide. My question is why he would decline this responsibility when he freely undertook to conduct an investigation. Also Barr correctly stated that in addition to being a prosecutor, Murllet, like himself, was an political appointee. What is wrong with being accurate?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 1, 2019 8:58:48 GMT -5
If the House wants to impeach then it should proceed to do so. But that is a political process and not a purely legal one. Barr and Rosenstein were left with the decision regarding prosecution and determined that here was no basis for same. One may disagree with the Barr/Rosenstein decision on the merits but they did follow proper process and made an decision that is well-grounded in the law. Did you read the report JLD? I don't understand how you didn't know why Mueller punted on obstruction when a lot of that reasoning is explained in the report. I know there's some debate on this, but isn't it pretty much accepted that the AG would be bound by OLC guidelines as well? Barr stated that with Mueller having decline to make a recommendation regarding prosecution, Mueller left it to the AG for determination. Further, Barr stated that he and Rosenstein were making this decision without regard to the OLC opinion letter. That is, even if a president could be prosecuted, he and Rosenstein determined that there was insufficient evidence based upon the facts and law to warrant prosecution. One may agree or disagree with Barr’s reasoning, but to suggest that he did not follow proper processes is not accurate, in my opinion.Again, the investigation is closed, and any repercussions or consequences should be in the political arena, but not in the legal one.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 1, 2019 8:20:40 GMT -5
Barr has issued his opening statement explaining that he followed the law and exercised prosecutorial judgment in accordance with long standing principles. He will attend today as he offered to do when he issued his letter in late March. What I fail to understand is that Mueller refused to make a decision on obstruction. He was charged to do so but did not. Having failed to do so, he should not be heard to complain about the manner in which the AG handled his report. And the bottom line is that Barr released the full report with minor redactions in accordance with the law. The public can draw its own conclusions about the report without reference to Barr’s four page letter and Mueller’s views on this. I suspect that this is just political theatre, but so be it. Mueller probably believed there’s another constitutionally prescribed mechanism for addressing bad conduct on the part of the president, namely Congress. But even though he didn’t make a decision to charge, it seems unquestionable that he discovered lots of bad conduct. He lays out 10 major episodes of obstruction. But he also said he'd follow DOJ rules that say he cannot indict POTUS. All of this is in the report. If the House wants to impeach then it should proceed to do so. But that is a political process and not a purely legal one. Barr and Rosenstein were left with the decision regarding prosecution and determined that here was no basis for same. One may disagree with the Barr/Rosenstein decision on the merits but they did follow proper process and made an decision that is well-grounded in the law.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 1, 2019 7:08:48 GMT -5
Doubt Barr shows up tomorrow... Barr has issued his opening statement explaining that he followed the law and exercised prosecutorial judgment in accordance with long standing principles. He will attend today as he offered to do when he issued his letter in late March. What I fail to understand is that Mueller refused to make a decision on obstruction. He was charged to do so but did not. Having failed to do so, he should not be heard to complain about the manner in which the AG handled his report. And the bottom line is that Barr released the full report with minor redactions in accordance with the law. The public can draw its own conclusions about the report without reference to Barr’s four page letter and Mueller’s views on this. I suspect that this is just political theatre, but so be it.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Apr 30, 2019 20:56:50 GMT -5
What is even going on in this thread? The last guy in our depth chart is leaving and we are brining in similarly or more talented players in his place. Is this not college basketball in 2019? Or even 2004? Is really so controversial that it deserves multiple pages to dissect it? What are people even arguing about? That player last in the depth chart shouldn't transfer? That we shouldn't upgrade talent as much as possible? Are we just arguing to argue? Agree 100%. Not a single person on this board knows why this kid has decided to transfer. These comments are sheer speculation and we should respect why Carter is leaving. Enough already.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Apr 27, 2019 6:48:47 GMT -5
I’d also note that Coach Pat’s great recruiting ethic and success sets up the basis and argument for landing the right 5-star who can fit in to the culture and vault us to even higher ground. Hey, here’s our foundation, a pack of under-appreciated, hongry dawgs. We play a fast, fierce brand of team basketball. Come in for 1-2 years and take us to the top. I think that is a legit argument if we become a tournament team next season and make just a little noise. I believe that Patrick is trying to build the foundation for a very good program in the model of — I hate to say it - Villanova. Jay Wright built enough depth to allow first year players to develop by redshirting or playing a back up role behind an experienced guy. Having to play freshmen is problematic because, absent one and done talent, they are inconsistent. Now, freshmen like Wilson and Gardner are not necessarily thrown into the fire right away and can adjust to college their first year. Hopefully Patrick can bring in 2020 guys to learn under our current starters, e.g., a guard like RJ Davis to learn behind Akinjo and step up as a sophomore. Pat is doing this the only way possible within our situation— not a big State school, not corrupt, etc. I give him a lot of credit and respect as he is incorporating different principles — trying for guys with JT2 era toughness on D yet with a modern pro-style offense and fast pace. Final comment - I wonder if he can install a pack line D now that he has more sizable and depth. The final 4 teams like UVA and Texas Tech use this and Xavier gave us fits with this..
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Apr 25, 2019 14:36:35 GMT -5
Very good pickup, gives the backcourt better depth and defense, and would also free up the scholarship for good 2020 guard recruits. I think the minutes issue will not be a problem at all. We really had only two top level guards last year in James and Mac, and they were both up and down. With an added year of experience with James and Mac and an experienced solid defender in Allen Pat has a better rounded more flexible roster.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Feb 1, 2019 6:32:50 GMT -5
LIsten to the tape. He said that if a live birth has a "severe deformity" OR was not viable, the infant would be allowed to die. A few questions: 1. A live birth is a person, not a fetus, so it has legal rights. Agree or disagree? 2. A parent and MD can agree to not allow the baby to live as per Northam. This is causing or contributing to the death of a person. Agree or disagree? 3. The legal definition of infanticide: "The act of killing of a newborn child. Infanticide is usually committed by the parents or with their consent." Given this definition, I believe that Northam advocated infanticide. Agree or disagree? One more request: Please answer directly. No references to Fox News, etc! ... So yes Northrop did advocate infanticide, and that is what the bill allows. You're wrong. The bill clearly states that life support “shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.” It's kind of pointless talking to you because if you believe that Northam wants to murder children you are obviously a ridiculous person. You're purposely smearing him, and you seem proud to do that. It's especially ironic because this is exactly the same thing you were scolding people for a week ago over the Covington boys. That says more about you than him... In those tragic moments, you make the baby as comfortable as possible, treating her/him with dignity & loving care. The delivery room becomes the hospice room- a place for tears, holding, and loving on a fleeting life. Your refusal to answer the questions speaks volumes. Another approach: are you in favor of causing the death of a “severely deformed” but viable live birth?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 31, 2019 21:25:59 GMT -5
And now Democratic Rep Kathy Tran walks back her story, per WPost:
“I wish that I was quicker on my feet and I wish that I was able to be more agile in that moment,” Tran, 41, a first-term Democrat from Fairfax County, said Thursday in a telephone interview. “And I misspoke, and I really regret that.”
When she was asked by a Republican lawmaker during the hearing whether the bill would allow for an abortion to occur when a woman is in labor and about to give birth, Tran said yes.
But on Thursday, Tran, a mother of four, corrected herself. “I should have said: ‘Clearly, no because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’ ”
So yes Northrop did advocate infanticide, and that is what the bill allows.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 31, 2019 19:44:47 GMT -5
Agree or disagree with Northam's positions on whatever issues you like. But maybe base objections on his actual positions. It's clear he's talking about a child who cannot survive. He's not talking about willfully killing a baby. I know this because I already watched the whole video before I commented. Basically, you just did to Northam what you said folks did to the Covington Boys. It's the same thing you were just trolling people for a week ago. Northam is a pediatrician. Do you really believe his stance is pro infanticide? LIsten to the tape. He said that if a live birth has a "severe deformity" OR was not viable, the infant would be allowed to die. A few questions: 1. A live birth is a person, not a fetus, so it has legal rights. Agree or disagree? 2. A parent and MD can agree to not allow the baby to live as per Northam. This is causing or contributing to the death of a person. Agree or disagree? 3. The legal definition of infanticide: "The act of killing of a newborn child. Infanticide is usually committed by the parents or with their consent." Given this definition, I believe that Northam advocated infanticide. Agree or disagree? One more request: Please answer directly. No references to Fox News, etc!
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 31, 2019 16:51:31 GMT -5
And I will not even mention “moderate” VA Governor comment that a mother and doctor can decide to terminate the life of a LIVE birth. Yes, I know, I am missing the “context”... Fake News? I'm sure since you went on a two day rant about how the video of the kids from Kentucky was taken out of context you will correct the record here, right? Agree or disagree with Northam's positions on whatever issues you like. But maybe base objections on his actual positions not a random rw blogger.. Listen to the interview and then let me know if you are OK with his position. And more nonsense, while we are at it: the co-sponsor of the late term abortion bill now apologizes and says that she did not know what was in the bill. Really??? What a profile in courage. us15.campaign-archive.com/?u=acdb4336ee6721e102dfb5029&id=bac358749c
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 31, 2019 16:06:43 GMT -5
Hopefully you guys make it your number 1 campaign issue. On a side note, when are you going to figure out how to use the "quote" button? It really has you stumped it seems... A simple question: Tell me if you think it is OK to kill a live birth. That is what VA Gov. proposed yesterday.
|
|