Jump to content
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, torqued said:

It might seem logical to desire a measurable practical benefit for each dollar spent, but dismissing airshows as simple entertainment seems a bit unreasonable. I've been to more airshows than I can count at civil and military airfields (Pope, CBM, Macdill, Homestead, Pensacola, etc to name a few) and the amount of education, inspiration, and goodwill they generate among the millions of people who attend them may not be measurable, but they are invaluable to our profession and the military.

Because you have never gone to an airshow and explained your aircraft and career to hundreds of kids, adults, vets, and others who know very little about them as they sit in amazement in the pilot seat, I can understand why you may feel the way you do. I highly recommend it, and if you do, you'll most certainly become at least a little more nuanced in your position. People should be able to see, hear, touch, and understand the things they are collectively paying for.

I disagree.  By your logic, the parade is a good idea.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the D memo got released. I'm sure it'll explain everything.

After initial read - much better than the first memo, though the target was different.  Answered a lot of the questions I had about timing, which the R memo "just seemed" to overlook.  I'm growing less and less enamored with the Party I've voted for, for over 20 years.

 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf

Edited by 17D_guy
Had to find it.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff Notes:

- Steele Dossier played NO role in opening the Carter Page investigation. They began their investigation prior to even receiving it.

- The DOJ did in fact inform the court of the origin of the Steele Dossier.

- They accuse Nunes of deliberately misrepresenting the underlying FISA Warrant intelligence.

- Four different judge's approved FISA warrants including judge's appointed by Bush and Reagan. Multiple DOJ officials also approved the applications prior to the court even seeing them including Trump appointees Rosenstein and Boente.

- They actually started listening to Page after he left Trump campaign so the idea they were watching him to spy on Trump is absurd.

- Page has a long history with Russia going back to 2004 and was being actively investigated once before already in 2013. The FBI had even interviewed him in 2016 again prior to receiving the Steele Dossier. The Steele dossier was referenced in the application as corroboration of certain things, and not to independently demonstrate.

- A bunch of blacked out additional evidence with a bit in the middle noting Page lied to the HIC in his testimony in 2017 about meeting with Russian officials.

- It included the footnote that discusses the Steele dossier source which SPECIFICALLY STATES ..."The FBI speculates the the unidentified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign." Candidate 1 is Trump I believe.

- DOJ timely informed the court when the FBI fired Steele and why.

- The attacks on Bruce Ohr for knowing Steele/and his wife working for Fusion GPS are 100% baseless. He was not involved in the FISA process and disclosed his relationships in November 2016.

Basically Nunes and Gowdy lied whole cloth that the FISA warrant was primarily based on a news article and the Steele Dossier. Those were in fact the least used and most minor pieces of evidence and they picked them out specifically for that reason to discredit the investigation and lied about their use.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RIP Republican talking points. :beer:

Have to see what they cling to now. My money is they flip the script and start banging the "thanks Obama" drum. Cant wait to see who is in the hot seat on today's Meet the Press, Face the Nation and State of the Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, drewpey said:

RIP Republican talking points. :beer:

Have to see what they cling to now. My money is they flip the script and start banging the "thanks Obama" drum. Cant wait to see who is in the hot seat on today's Meet the Press, Face the Nation and State of the Union.

Then why does Senator Coons not want the report released this summer?  Simple question yet no one can provide me a logical answer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, Democrat response to GOP memo disputes everything.  For some, only those "facts" contained in one or the other are valid and the other "facts" are simply partisan talking points to score political points.

Kinda like a kids' argument, "No it's not."  "Yes, it is." 

But played with my money.

I am not amused.

 

edited to add:  But not a word to the current Administration's actually releasing the opposition's memo, however redacted.  Would've been mighty easy to keep it under wraps as a 'security' measure.  But it didn't.  

Edited by brickhistory
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Hmmm, Democrat response to GOP memo disputes everything.  For some, only those "facts" contained in one or the other are valid and the other "facts" are simply partisan talking points to score political points.

Kinda like a kids' argument, "No it's not."  "Yes, it is." 

But played with my money.

I am not amused.

 

edited to add:  But not a word to the current Administration's actually releasing the opposition's memo, however redacted.  Would've been mighty easy to keep it under wraps as a 'security' measure.  But it didn't.  

Trump's administration didn't release it. The HIC did after the they redacted it to make it not classified. As opposed to the Republican memo which was declassified by the President and then released.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Trump's administration didn't release it. The HIC did after the they redacted it to make it not classified. As opposed to the Republican memo which was declassified by the President and then released.

I stand corrected.  Apologies.

Facts are funny things; they either they are or they aren't.

Kinda like if I had one, never mind dozens, classified e-mail on my home system, including at TS/SCI and above material.

Would the FBI proceed on my "intent" or those pesky facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Then why does Senator Coons not want the report released this summer?  Simple question yet no one can provide me a logical answer...

We discussed this a page or two ago. There is reason for and against, but only Coons knows the answer to that...ask him. Asking private citizens repeatedly isn't going to get you anywhere. We can only speculate, but in the end what he wants doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, drewpey said:

We discussed this a page or two ago. There is reason for and against, but only Coons knows the answer to that...ask him. Asking private citizens repeatedly isn't going to get you anywhere. We can only speculate, but in the end what he wants doesn't matter.

Would you like to provide your opinion as to why?  You (like the rest of us) aren't shying away from providing an opinion on nearly everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Would you like to provide your opinion as to why?  You (like the rest of us) aren't shying away from providing an opinion on nearly everything else.

I think the FBI releasing the report late-summer is only going to feed into this "deep state" red-hat conspiracy theory going on and will make roughly 33% of the country reject any and all facts presented to them on the matter as simply political sabotage. Even worse it could lead to a "FBI purge" or whatever the right keeps hinting at. My personal opinion is  Mueller should release the report when it's done, regardless of optics and political influence...which is most likely what he will do.

Many see this report release as the democratic life support in 2018. Like we need it to prevent being faded into irrelevance. I don't think it's true at all...the democratic base is motivated to show up at the polls to kick our government back into action. With every policy announcement R's have done a better job than any democratic leader of stirring up democratic voters and chipping away at their base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many democrats were not motivated to get out and vote because they were lukewarm about Hillary and thought the election was decided.

I think we will see record voting % in 2018 compared to recent years. The 2017 civics course was a wake-up call to many on the importance of elections and a government that exercises it's checks and balances to make a country function.

It will be interesting if Parkland energises young voters, and to see how conservative the boomer generation stays if/when conservatives touch the social security/Medicare third rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was an interesting interview w/ Gov's Kasich (OH) and Hickenlooper (CO) about the coming election.  I'm not sure we're going to see the fall of our party system, but the call out of the D's lack of a platform outside "not-Trump" is a problem.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-witnessing-end-party-system-republican-governor/story?id=53330459

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2018 at 8:50 PM, matmacwc said:

Do said foreigners have constitutional protections, and if they do, why?

Allow me to quote myself.  They aren’t entitled to all protections.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/27/supreme-court-rules-that-detained-immigrants-dont-get-automatic-bond-hearings.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May 17, 2017 was nearly 2 years ago? Also, 4 people pled guilty and took a plea deal and avoided sentencing. Who knows what will come of this but I don't see reason for a facepalm yet.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avoided sentencing for what? I guess we'll find out after midterms...

Definitely OK with going after Manafort (or anybody else) for tax fraud. But all the "lying to the FBI" charges seem like punishment for not taking notes from Hillary's "I don't recall" sessions. But tell me you actually believe Trump cooked up some nefarious plot with the Russians to fvck Hillary out of the win she so deserved and there isn't a shred of partisan politics effecting any of it and I'll STFU. I mean, for fvcks sake, Mueller charged Russians for setting up a bot farm to spread misinformation... Weak.

Edited by tk1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, tk1313 said:

I mean, for fvcks sake, Mueller charged Russians for setting up a bot farm to spread misinformation... Weak.

Are you saying that's weak as in pointless, or weak as in it didn't happen and some "deep state" is rising up against the anointed Prez?

Just so we're clear, you're fine with some crimes getting prosecuted, but not others.  So you're cool with the original Slick Willy issues while he was in office?  Since you don't think lying to the FBI/investigators should be punishable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Are you saying that's weak as in pointless, or weak as in it didn't happen and some "deep state" is rising up against the anointed Prez?

Just so we're clear, you're fine with some crimes getting prosecuted, but not others.  So you're cool with the original Slick Willy issues while he was in office?  Since you don't think lying to the FBI/investigators should be punishable.

Weak as in pointless. I don't think a special counsel is needed to go after internet trolls. Personally, I think if Bill Clinton was President today and the Lewinsky story broke, people wouldn't really care nearly as much as they did back then. And I never said lying to the FBI shouldn't be punished, just implied that the actual lies aren't as groundbreaking as I would expect from a special counsel investigation. In your honest opinion, is the special counsel making great strides towards punishing those involved in "Russian meddling" in our election? And do you believe that the Trump campaign actively aided the Russians in said meddling?

Edited by tk1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Weak as in pointless. I don't think a special counsel is needed to go after internet trolls. Personally, I think if Bill Clinton was President today and the Lewinsky story broke, people wouldn't really care nearly as much as they did back then. And I never said lying to the FBI shouldn't be punished, just implied that the actual lies aren't as groundbreaking as I would expect from a special counsel investigation. In your honest opinion, is the special counsel making great strides towards punishing those involved in "Russian meddling" in our election? And do you believe that the Trump campaign actively aided the Russians in said meddling?

Not needed, but if crimes are uncovered while investigating something else, should he have just looked the other way? Isn't it his DUTY, as a law enforcement officer, to lay charges for all crimes that have been found during an investigation... even if that specific crime wasn't the target of the investigation?

If you have 10 kilos of coke in the backseat of your car, and you get pulled over for speeding, should the officer ignore the coke and just write a ticket for speeding?

If you're being investigated for possible murder and they find evidence you launder money for the mob, should they ignore that because they were only looking at you for murder?

Your argument makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Not needed, but if crimes are uncovered while investigating something else, should he have just looked the other way? Isn't it his DUTY, as a law enforcement officer, to lay charges for all crimes that have been found during an investigation... even if that specific crime wasn't the target of the investigation?

If you have 10 kilos of coke in the backseat of your car, and you get pulled over for speeding, should the officer ignore the coke and just write a ticket for speeding?

If you're being investigated for possible murder and they find evidence you launder money for the mob, should they ignore that because they were only looking at you for murder?

Your argument makes no sense.

I'm not a lawyer or in any job that deals with law enforcement... But let's say I get pulled over for speeding, then the officer gets a warrant to search my car based on the initial crime of speeding. He finds 10 kilos of coke hidden under the back seat (I'm a smart drug dealer, don't insult me by assuming I'd leave drugs in plain view of the officer), but later in court it's discovered that I was not actually speeding and the officer pulled me over because he felt like it and happened to get lucky with the coke bust... Weren't my 4th amendment rights violated?

If I'm being investigated for murder, and lie to the investigators about who I met with on the day the crime was committed, but it turns out I didn't commit murder and the person who said that I was the one who did was mistaken and they found the actual killer... Would I still be charged with misleading investigators? (again, honest question)

I never made an argument for letting the charge of lying slide... Just stated that I'm underwhelmed with the charges stemming from such a high profile investigation.

Finally, my point is that it seems like there is a big push to put the investigation before the crime and without probable cause. The assumption of guilt is coming before the investigation. My understanding of the law of the US is that we have a presumption of innocence...

 

im sorry i thought this was america.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tk1313 said:

I'm not a lawyer or in any job that deals with law enforcement... But let's say I get pulled over for speeding, then the officer gets a warrant to search my car based on the initial crime of speeding. He finds 10 kilos of coke hidden under the back seat (I'm a smart drug dealer, don't insult me by assuming I'd leave drugs in plain view of the officer), but later in court it's discovered that I was not actually speeding and the officer pulled me over because he felt like it and happened to get lucky with the coke bust... Weren't my 4th amendment rights violated?

If I'm being investigated for murder, and lie to the investigators about who I met with on the day the crime was committed, but it turns out I didn't commit murder and the person who said that I was the one who did was mistaken and they found the actual killer... Would I still be charged with misleading investigators? (again, honest question)

I never made an argument for letting the charge of lying slide... Just stated that I'm underwhelmed with the charges stemming from such a high profile investigation.

Finally, my point is that it seems like there is a big push to put the investigation before the crime and without probable cause. The assumption of guilt is coming before the investigation. My understanding of the law of the US is that we have a presumption of innocence...

 

 

AMEN!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




If I'm being investigated for murder, and lie to the investigators about who I met with on the day the crime was committed, but it turns out I didn't commit murder and the person who said that I was the one who did was mistaken and they found the actual killer... Would I still be charged with misleading investigators? (again, honest question)


Yes. This is one of the many, many reasons you never talk to the police if they have questions for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

let's say I get pulled over for speeding, then the officer gets a warrant to search my car based on the initial crime of speeding. He finds 10 kilos of coke hidden under the back seat (I'm a smart drug dealer, don't insult me by assuming I'd leave drugs in plain view of the officer), but later in court it's discovered that I was not actually speeding and the officer pulled me over because he felt like it and happened to get lucky with the coke bust... Weren't my 4th amendment rights violated?

Not a lawyer either, but what you're getting at are the limits of exemptions to the exclusionary rule. Probably depends on whether or not the cop was acting in good faith. Ref: US vs. Leon (1984)

 

6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

If I'm being investigated for murder, and lie to the investigators about who I met with on the day the crime was committed, but it turns out I didn't commit murder and the person who said that I was the one who did was mistaken and they found the actual killer... Would I still be charged with misleading investigators? (again, honest question)

Yes. Ref: common sense. You lied to the cops, which is against the law. 

 

6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

I never made an argument for letting the charge of lying slide... Just stated that I'm underwhelmed with the charges stemming from such a high profile investigation.

Special Counsel investigations take time. This one has been going on for less than a year. For comparison's sake, here's a chart from a December 2017 538 article:

thompson-deveaux-indictments.png?w=575&h=785&quality=90&strip=info

 

6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Finally, my point is that it seems like there is a big push to put the investigation before the crime and without probable cause. The assumption of guilt is coming before the investigation. My understanding of the law of the US is that we have a presumption of innocence...

Where is this presumption of guilt coming from, in your eyes?

Also, I don't see how anyone can realistically argue there's a lack of probable cause at this point. There may not be fire , but damn if there isn't a hell of a lot of smoke.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×