JCauto

Where are all the Trump supporters here decrying the lack of "law and order"? These guys clearly broke the law, yet they're being allowed to walk free. Where's the outrage?

11 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Lots of folks with TDS. Seems to be the same folks who whinge about everything....

Welcome to the Forum. Just a small hint to help you get started - if you are a Russian disinformation spreader, it's probably better not to use a Russian name as your handle. Try something that sounds Middle American, it will appear less obvious.

8 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Got that right. 

They could announce that Trump found a cure for Cancer and some folks who have severe TDS will still castigate him. 

Yes, because that's very likely to happen! I can see the Donald down in the lab, carefully titrating different potential compounds into the petri dishes...

18 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I do not have any issues at all  at 22%, not that I believe that is the true cost or that most of those other countries that America pays to defend would be able to mutually defend America if needed.

 

Still, I think you'll agree that 22% is more than it should be.

 

It would be nice if we could free up some money for our citizen's healthcare, the same as our overpaying for everything has freed up those monies for their citizens healthcare.

Yes, clearly a major priority for the current Congress, hence their decision to try to gut health care funding in order to pay for the Trillion Dollar Tax Cut for the Rich and Corporations. Your current administration clearly has no interest in providing additional funding for health care, they're proposing to cut billions of dollars from it instead in the House budget.

18 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I don't take aything Trump says seriously, nor should anyone else. I haven't read the NY Times article but if it suggests that Euorpean nations are paying anywhere near their fair share of NATO costs it is likely bullshit. America should be paying 25%-30% of NATO costs at most.

Well, you're going to be pleased to hear that the US only pays 22% of NATO costs. So you should have no issues at all I guess.

Just now, lannarebirth said:

With all due respect, that post is a pile of excrement. Why on Earth should Americans care (spend) more on the Europeans than they would choose to care (spend)  on themselves?

Your post has little to do with my point, which is how the Right are now parroting policy that is directly opposite to what they have had as core values for 75 years. Interesting how easy it is to abandon these principles. Never mind the moral ones.

The issue with regards to the "2%" has been adequately debunked by the NY Times article. How anyone could take anything that Trump says seriously without it being thoroughly fact-checked by a reputable media source is mind boggling. Even most of his supporters understand that he will say anything at any time. Apparently this is part of his genius at negotiation.

1 minute ago, GinBoy2 said:

Since so many on TVF seem to despise the US role in the world, you should be overjoyed at the prospect of a new Isolationist USA.

Although remove the US from the bogey man role, who you gonna pick on?

That's an odd conclusion. The current President and his administration are the Nativist/Isolationists and those of us opposed to this are in favour of the current system of treaties and alliances based on shared liberal democratic ideals and free markets. My point in my earlier post was how ironic it was that it is the Republican/Right who are now the ones no longer in favour of democracy, free markets and a strong Western alliance as a bulwark against the corrupt autocracies whom the US has been opposing for the last 75 years or so. These used to be their core values.

So here's the latest evidence, from that quack institution Harvard.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

This book chapter summarizes the scientific literature on the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths...This article examines homicide rates of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) from 1996 to 2010.  Differences in rates of homicides of LEOs across states are best explained not by differences in crime, but by differences in household gun ownership.  In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states.

The numbers speak for themselves.

9 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Indeed - especially as the wannabee dictator is an ex ............................................... KR terrorist!

Terrorist? That's an odd description. He was an ex-KR Cadre, something like Lieutenant level. Plus, he's not a wannabee dictator, he's already achieved Dictator status.

The Tribunal is a joke, and has been a colossal waste of resources, most of which were squandered on very high-priced lawyers, not one of whom as far as I can tell decided to take a discount in pay in light of the critical importance of the trial for human rights globally. In other words, it was a gravy train with no serious power to do anything about the sins of the past, and without hardly any real support from the locals.

TL;DR: The talks with North Korea produced a big, fat, Nothingburger.

Too bad, if he'd managed to at least make that happen there may have been some actual benefit to having him as President.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it hasn't been announced how can you say anything other than opinion? 

I think there isn't anything to the Russia thing, given it's over a year and all the indictments so far have nothing to do with Russia collusion. Meanwhile, the FBI team that was investigating the Russian collusion thing are being sacked, losing security clearances, and probably going to be facing charges of crimes relating to their investigation.

I'm not an insider, so yes, it's opinion but there appears to be lots of evidence to support it. There's little doubt that Trump and Giuliani floating Presidential Pardons was another bit of signalling desperately that they need the Cohens of this world to not flip. But Cohen will at the very least understand that the Presidential Pardons only apply to Federal crimes, and they've got him dead to rights on State crimes too, so that's not going to help him. 

Not surprisingly, Mueller and his team haven't shown their hand with respect to the Russia investigation, but they're working their way methodically up the ladder. You believe that one year from now, we'll be watching the spectacle of a number of career FBI people being put on trial for deliberate malfeasance. I believe that one year from now, the Donald and a number of his cronies will be in the dock . Let's see who is more accurate. I would say that you may be right that the Russia investigation may well end up ambiguous and unsatisfactory - a conclusion for example that Russia interfered, numerous Trump acolytes were trying very hard to get them to cooperate, but that they interfered on their own more or less while working to compromise the election, the integrity of the process and the two political parties that Americans vote for. On the other hand, in their detailed examination of Trump world, they're almost inevitably going to stumble upon decades of criminal activity that have made the Donald what he is today. They ARE allowed to pursue leads to criminal activity that they come across during the Russia investigation, and I have no doubt whatsoever they'll find so many examples of mafia-like behaviour they'll wonder how they hadn't ever had this guy behind bars in the first place. 

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Who said Cohen has flipped?

 

witnesses tying numerous players and organizations under Trump's control or supporting him to Russia

Like who? The Russian FBI informant that tried to entrap Stone and others, the British agent that was sacked by the FBI, the FBI agents that have been sacked? 

 

Do keep up, happened last week more or less. Don't expect an announcement, that's not how it works.

You really don't think that there is more to the Russia thing than a single informant? Okay, sure, whatever.

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So far Mueller hasn't come out with any indictments as to Trump, so seems wishful thinking that there is any there, there. Glad you included an IF.

As long as the GOP holds the house, and it's looking good for November, Trump probably isn't going to be impeached, regardless. The GOP isn't going to approve "emergency measures". As far as the Justice department is concerned, they ain't gonna move against Trump as long as he's POTUS, for the obvious reasons.

Well of course, I am not in favour of prosecuting or jailing Trump for things he hasn't done. But given his history, it seems quite unlikely that he hasn't broken the law on numerous occasions, we'll just have to see what the most serious charges they can irrefutably tie him to are. I suspect he'll claim (with strong justification) that whatever he's been recorded saying was a lie and as he's demonstrated that he will almost constantly lie on almost any issue and even on both sides of the same issue at different times (even in the same speech), that will be a strong argument I suppose. This is where the constant attacks on truth and facts in general lead. But of course no indictments of the top of the pyramid have come out, that's not how it works. You build cases by getting the little guys who then peach out the next up the line of command until you reach the top. Wishful thinking? Well, are we up to 19 indictments so far or what is the current number? How many people have been indicted during the five-year investigation of Hillary and Benghazi?

I agree that if the GOP holds the House and Senate, then this is going nowhere and it shouldn't if that's the case. Because it will have demonstrated that the American people are so apathetic, hopeless, or ineffectual on the opposition side or significantly more people than we understand actually approve  of what's going on and are just pretending to give a crap. And yes, I'll pretty much have to give up on much progress happening in the USA for a while. That would be a very dark day for democracy, the environment, women and human rights. Personally, I believe that this disastrous administration will ultimately motivate the Center of American Politics to come out in November and turf them out. Once this becomes apparent due to polling in September, I expect a shooting war to erupt in the Middle East as a last-ditch effort to win the Mid-Terms and complete the bankrupting of the Social Security system. Imagine what a paradise you'll be in then! All your dreams come true!

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Expect any claim that he wasn't acting as a lawyer to be litigated to the supreme court. That should take a few years.

Oh sure, there will be an instantaneous clamour to issue stays and otherwise drag out the investigation. But given that it's a sitting President, it will come down quite quickly to the substance of what Mueller's got. If he's managed to compile a case that is very strong and artfully presents it such that the non-Base agree that it's compelling or even an "open and shut" case of gross misconduct, then fuggedaboudit ever getting through a normal slow and careful legal process. It will come down to emergency measures and a constitutional crisis. Which is of course where we're going inevitably.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If he's paid by Trump he's in a lawyer/ client relationship. I doubt there's a law that says he has to have more than one client.

With 3.7 million documents that can all be disputed in court, don't expect a rapid end to this. Could take 3 to 7 years.

Nope. That would be too too easy for criminals to use as a means of circumventing the law - you have a Law Degree, therefore I can use you as a mobile ATM and criminal favour dealer so long as I pay you. The basis upon which they're determining whether there was an Attorney-Client privilege is the substance of the discussions and work undertaken. If it were questions and answers regarding the legality of this or that, billings for preparation of contracts or other regular lawyerly stuff, no worries, covered.

If Trump though was using Cohen as a Front Man to funnel cash to and from various shell companies to pay off various people who he done wrong, channeling contacts and funds through him as a blind to conceal his relationships with foreign entities helping his campaign, and various other activities that appear far more within his purview, then he's not acting as a lawyer, but as a co-conspirator. Don't worry so much about this taking 3 years, not even a hope of that happening although you have a point that if they were to follow everything and wrap all the different leads up prior to indictment it would probably take that long. Instead, Trump and his Brass Band are ratcheting up the pressure so that they'll be forced to bring charges earlier to avoid the risk of the public being incited to end the investigation prior to its completion. Now that Cohen's flipped, and he has Manafort locked up and a string of witnesses tying numerous players and organizations under Trump's control or supporting him to Russia and others abroad, it shouldn't take too much longer to be rid of this plague of fools.

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They would be privileged.

How many lawyers, assistants and time is needed to review 3.7 million documents?

Except that the Judges appear to be siding with the view that there was no Attorney-Client privilege between Cohen and his clients as he was acting more as a "fixer" and a consultant than a lawyer. And as one is seldom as careful in speaking as one is in writing, I'm expecting pretty much everything to come out in the wash. Won't that be a dainty dish to set before your King?

8 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

It’s really humorous to me that being opposed to immigration law seems to mean you need to try to change facts and use tricky wording. Why can’t legitimate facts be enough to let people decide? 

Or, alternatively, post one-line responses to complex arguments repeating the same already discredited line ad nauseum while carefully avoiding responding to the valid points made by one's interlocutors.

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if you're awaiting trial then you haven't been convicted yet. By your logic, nobody who is charged with a crime and awaiting trial should be released into the community. And this is a victimless crime to boot. So nothing in the nature of the crime represents a threat to the community. 

 

Bawk! Law is law! Bawk! Black or white! Bawk! 

Just thought I'd give you bushdoctor's response to save him some time. His favourite book in the last 10 years was a bit naughty, "0 Shades of Gray".

48 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

How many billionaires do you actually know? They can be asses just like the rest of us. 

None. You said smart people, not billionaires. And you just made my point - you don't necessarily have to be smart to be a Billionaire. 

Just now, bushdoctor said:

A border wall is exempt. National security. 

Exempt from causing ecological and environmental damage? 

Trump and his minions like the execrable scumbag Pruitt of course will ignore the obvious environmental impacts of the wall. They have no vision to think about long-term consequences. I have no idea what your previous comment had to do with mine, which was referring to these impacts and the likely scale of the project. If you possess great knowledge of the area, you should surely have something useful to add to these aspects, no?

1 minute ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Are you sure? Trump is a smart guy. 

The government doesn’t have to resolve the lawsuits by agreeing on a fair price or identifying all the landowners to begin construction. Once the Justice Department sues and tells the court it’s taking the land, the property belongs to the federal government. As I said, it’s called Eminent Domain. A legal challenge over fair price could still be made, but wouldn’t stop the land from being acquired.  

 

Then there is invoking the national security clause. That’s is where U.S. presidents have huge leverage and something Trump is well aware of. 

 

About half the Texas land has already been acquired under previous administrations for their own border fence plans. Most people probably wouldn’t have a problem with selling a 25 foot strip of border land for a wall, as long as they got  a fair price. If they refuse then the land will be condemned and will still end up in government hands. Even if an unforeseen situation did arise in a certain area, that wouldn’t prevent construction of the rest of the wall. 

I'm not sure that Trump is a smart guy at all, but that's a different issue. You're correct about eminent domain, they would certainly be able to do that and Trump has already used the "National Security" excuse for tariffs on Canadian steel which are very obviously no such thing. So no doubt he would do it in this case.

The only issue I would raise is that there's no way you end up with a mere 25 foot of eminent domain easement when you're talking a national security measure that's being actively patrolled. They'd put a perimeter road of significant size completely around it along with regular access routes for starters. There would be regularly spaced outposts for agents, facilities for the patrolling, etc. This would be a yuuuugggeee project with a massively negative environmental impact that wastes billions of dollars on something that is not a major problem for the US (California crops are already starting to rot in the fields due to lack of workers)...

1 hour ago, wayned said:

Really!  .The government has the right to acquire land under the provisions of the 5thn amendment for a fair market value but any attept will be tied up in court for many years.  You obviously don't know much about the Rio Grande Valley.  The many farmer's and ranchers in both Comedic and the US rely on the river to provide irrigation for their crops and water for their cattle.  In addition there are many recreational companies that offer facilities, tours and outings all along the river.  These people will not allow the government to put them out of business without a significant legal fight which will go on as on as the current immigration spat.  If they have no access to the river their businesses, farms and ranches will cease to exist.  What is the"fair market value" for that. It'll never happen!!!!

You're also neglecting the disastrous ecological impact it will have on wildlife in the border regions.

What this article fails to mention however is the revelation from a couple of months ago that Cohen typically would record and keep all of his conversations with his clients. When one does this, probably little need to document them. But oh boy, what a treasure trove those recordings are likely to be.