ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Andrew McCabe , donald trump , George Papadopoulos , Michael Cohen , Paul Manafort , Robert Mueller , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections

Closed Thread
Old 9th August 2018, 03:16 PM   #2361
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,558
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
If this is true, and everything about this meeting was above board and legal, then ask yourself this, why the cover up?
Stupidity.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:18 PM   #2362
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,382
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
If this is true, and everything about this meeting was above board and legal, then ask yourself this, why the cover up?
Why did Bill Clinton try to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky? The affair was legal.

The answer is obvious: sometimes perfectly legal things are embarrassing. Did you seriously not consider that possibility? Because if you did, then this is a bad faith argument, and if you didn't, you should be embarrassed for missing this rather prosaic possibility.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:21 PM   #2363
Scootch
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Bill Clinton was impeached for that lie too. For me though I have a hard time thinking that Trump would be embarrassed or ashamed of anything he has ever done (but I do admit to having a strong anti-Trump bias)
Scootch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:23 PM   #2364
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,699
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So in this case, the fact that someone offered them information, and that they went to the meeting expecting information may not matter. Of course, IANAL and I don't have any knowledge of whether any information did or did not materialize. But an expectation by itself may not be sufficient for a claim of conspiracy.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you go into a store and ask if they have hammers, and they say no and you leave, can you be charged with attempted theft? You didn't say you would pay for one, after all.
No, that is not an analogy to the crime of conspiracy; the crime is not committing the act that you have conspired (with at least one other person) to commit; the crime is conspiring to commit that act. I'll repeat what I posted earlier.

A conspiracy to commit an illegal act does not require that act to be successful for it to be a crime. If another person and I conspire to assassinate a politician, but we fail in that attempt for any reason, whether that reason is inside or outside our control, we have both still committed the crime of conspiracy.

If you conspire with a friend to steal some hammers from a store, and you don't go through with it for whatever reason, you have still committed a crime by conspiring to do so.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:25 PM   #2365
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
If this is true, and everything about this meeting was above board and legal, then ask yourself this, why the cover up?
Who knows? It may be that they did do something illegal or unethical. I don't think any of us know what actually occurred in that meeting. Regardless, I think the cover-up after the fact is a bit of "filling in the blank" with respect to acbytesla's post, as well as being irrelevant to my question regarding whether it was the "meeting with foreign agents" or the "getting dirt" aspect that he finds to be beyond the pale.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Stupidity.
Well yeah, maybe that too.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:30 PM   #2366
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,699
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why did Bill Clinton try to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky? The affair was legal.
The affair was NOT the reason he tried to cover it up... he tried to cover it up because he lied about it to a Grand Jury and to Congress.

Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:

the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
his attempts to tamper with witnesses

Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[22]

encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses


The impeachment charges were for lying, not for the affair.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:52 PM   #2367
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,409
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
No, that is not an analogy to the crime of conspiracy; the crime is not committing the act that you have conspired (with at least one other person) to commit; the crime is conspiring to commit that act. I'll repeat what I posted earlier.

A conspiracy to commit an illegal act does not require that act to be successful for it to be a crime. If another person and I conspire to assassinate a politician, but we fail in that attempt for any reason, whether that reason is inside or outside our control, we have both still committed the crime of conspiracy.

If you conspire with a friend to steal some hammers from a store, and you don't go through with it for whatever reason, you have still committed a crime by conspiring to do so.
Wut? Oh, so it's, like, mens rea is a thing now?? The prosecution can demonstrate a conspiracy to rip-off hammers. Maybe I contacted a friend to borrow his van on a certain day at a certain time. I enlisted others, tasking one with buying masks and another with getting guns. I had a buyer lined up. Just because we didn't carry out the great hammer heist -- doesn't mean we're free from prosecution.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Frum thinks Steele was spying on the Russian government?

Bwahahahahahahaha!
Yeah, Frum's an idiot. It's not like Steele spent decades working for MI-6, let alone had any knowledge of Russian operations. Why was Steele briefing US intelligence agents? Makes no sense.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:58 PM   #2368
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,469
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And what function are you claiming was going to be interfered with?


Since the answer is blatantly obvious, I'm curious what point you think you are making here?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 9th August 2018 at 04:28 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:59 PM   #2369
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,469
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Legally speaking, what does that even mean? And how exactly do you think it's different than what Steele did?
I take it you haven't read the posts in this thread which answer this question.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:12 PM   #2370
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,469
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
....

But all that is really moot. Manafort isn't being tried for anything to do with his helping Russia. We can speculate all we want about how this trial is an attempt to flip him or whatever but the fact is that he is being tried for unrelated tax fraud and financial shenanigans. If he is convicted for that, is there going to then be yet another trial against Manafort directly concerning Russian shenanigans?
You haven't been following the trial, I take it?

Rachel Maddow Draws Direct Line From Paul Manafort’s Trial To The Trump Campaign
Quote:
Citing court proceedings this week, the MSNBC host noted that Manafort appears to have used his position on the Trump campaign to sell – for cash – a high-level job running the U.S. Army.

“[Manafort] really did apparently sell the promise of a job running the United States Army in exchange for cash,” Maddow said. “That apparently really happened.”
And that was not the only thing connected to Trump and the Trump campaign that Manafort was attempting to sell to rich Russians and Ukrainians.

Manafort Denies Trump Campaign Changed GOP Platform On Ukraine

We know that is false and certainly Mueller knows it's false.
Quote:
When a platform committee member offered an amendment to the platform that called for supporting Ukraine members of the Trump campaign who were not members of the committee jumped in to edit the amendment, Rogin reported. They stripped language from the amendment saying the U.S. should help Ukraine by “providing lethal defensive weapons” and instead wrote that America should offer “appropriate assistance.”

After Manafort denied any involvement from the campaign, Rogin stood by his reporting on Sunday morning.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:16 PM   #2371
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,469
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. It is never the proper function of government to do something which is not possible to do.

They prohibit specific forms of influence. The do not, and cannot, prohibit any and all forms of influence. Nor should they, if you consider things rationally.

For example, suppose candidate A proposes imposing a large tariff on all imports from country X. The president of country X points out that they buy $Y in goods from us, and promises retaliatory tariffs that would cost us $Z. This could influence the election. Moreover, it should be able to influence the election, since it's potentially useful information for voters to know and consider.
Your analogy is a red herring. That is not what happened.


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You cannot categorize mere speech as a "contribution" subject to regulation.

Sure.

Why? And why is that worse than doing so through an intermediary, as Hillary did?
But but her emails, and uranium...

You might want to get your news from some other sources.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:19 PM   #2372
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,469
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Decent analogy... but it's not solicitation until money changes hands. ....
Wrong. This has been covered ad nauseum in the news.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:27 PM   #2373
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,469
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why did Bill Clinton try to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky? The affair was legal.

The answer is obvious: sometimes perfectly legal things are embarrassing. Did you seriously not consider that possibility? Because if you did, then this is a bad faith argument, and if you didn't, you should be embarrassed for missing this rather prosaic possibility.
Oh puhleese, they covered up the meeting and all the other meetings with top campaign officials and Russians because they were embarrassed?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:27 PM   #2374
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,393
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Decent analogy... but it's not solicitation until money changes hands. It doesn't matter what the guy says, even if it's horribly blatant and explicit... until he exchanges money for the offer of sex, it's not illegal. The fact that the undercover cop offered sex for money, and that he went into the hotel room expecting to get sex for money is irrelevant until a transaction occurs.

So in this case, the fact that someone offered them information, and that they went to the meeting expecting information may not matter. Of course, IANAL and I don't have any knowledge of whether any information did or did not materialize. But an expectation by itself may not be sufficient for a claim of conspiracy. And beyond that, in order to pursue the "item of value" angle, I would suppose that proof of an item must exist, rather than just the expectation of an item.

Either way, I agree that the meeting shouldn't have happened, and that it indicates a willingness to do things that they should know that they ought not to be doing. I'm just not certain that it is in any fashion sufficient as evidence in any meaningful fashion.
You are wrong.

Quote:
It makes no difference if sex never takes place and money never changes hands.

Note that a prostitute can be criminally liable for solicitation even if he/she never intended to go through with the sex act. And a john can be criminally liable for prostitution even if he/she plans to go back on his/her promise to pay for the sex. A person's actions, not intent, is the key to determining whether solicitation takes place.
https://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/solicitation.html#1.2
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 04:45 PM   #2375
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,699
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Wut? Oh, so it's, like, mens rea is a thing now?? The prosecution can demonstrate a conspiracy to rip-off hammers. Maybe I contacted a friend to borrow his van on a certain day at a certain time. I enlisted others, tasking one with buying masks and another with getting guns. I had a buyer lined up. Just because we didn't carry out the great hammer heist -- doesn't mean we're free from prosecution.
I'll reply seriously because not everyone (especially lurkers) understand your penchant for outrageous satire.


The essence of conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to engage in some form of prohibited conduct. The crime is complete upon agreement, although some statutes require prosecutors to show that at least one of the conspirators has taken some concrete step or committed some overt act in furtherance of the scheme.

Further reading

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 06:34 PM   #2376
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,382
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Your analogy is a red herring. That is not what happened.
You really aren't good at reading comprehension. That wasn't an analogy for what happened. That was an example, independent of what happened with Trump, for why the standard of "influencing" an election is nonsensical.

Quote:
But but her emails, and uranium...

You might want to get your news from some other sources.
I haven't mentioned or referred to either of those things in this discussion. indeed.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 06:37 PM   #2377
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,382
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The affair was NOT the reason he tried to cover it up... he tried to cover it up because he lied about it to a Grand Jury and to Congress.
How can you get something so simple so completely wrong? Lying to a Grand Jury and to Congress was part of the coverup.

Quote:
The impeachment charges were for lying, not for the affair.
No ****, Sherlock. But why did he lie, since the affair was legal?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 07:16 PM   #2378
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 609
Trump defenders contend in vain when striving to convince themselves that conspiracy (nee collusion) is not a crime. What, do they think prosecutors are or would be just making up law on the spot or something?! Twisting the law to purely partisan purposes? Counting on the whole apparatus of the justice system to go along with a fraud? Well, those of that Party--in frightful numbers--who've already stated a willingness to suspend the 2020 elections to appease Trump might, in their demonstrable, fevered, conspiratorial mindset, leap to such a projection of their own anti-constitutional leanings.

And it *is* conspiracy against the *country* even if the immediate victim is an individual candidate (Hillary). Because it impacts an *election*, which concerns the foundation of national sovereignty at the very least. Trumpists, like their idol, are too wooly-headed to think beyond the immediately personal, unable to grasp issues that impact beyond the end of one's fingertips.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 07:40 PM   #2379
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,469
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You really aren't good at reading comprehension. That wasn't an analogy for what happened. That was an example, independent of what happened with Trump, for why the standard of "influencing" an election is nonsensical.
An example but not an analogy? Seriously, that's where you're going with this?

Metaphor, Simile and Analogy: What’s the Difference?
Quote:
An analogy is using an example to explain something else by showing how the two situations are similar.

Quote:
I haven't mentioned or referred to either of those things in this discussion. indeed.
That is how one uses satire to make a point.

__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 08:04 PM   #2380
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,699
Arrow

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How can you get something so simple so completely wrong? Lying to a Grand Jury and to Congress was part of the coverup.
... and it was the cover-up that got him into trouble per-se

No, of course the affair wasn't illegal. It was lying about it, before Congress and the Grand Jury, as well as his clumsy attempts at witness tampering that caused the impeachment process to be started

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...nton-impeached

Kenneth Starr submitted his report and 18 boxes of supporting documents to the House of Representatives. Released to the public two days later, the Starr Report outlined a case for impeaching Clinton on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power, and also provided explicit details of the sexual relationship between the president and Ms. Lewinsky. On October 8, the House authorized a wide-ranging impeachment inquiry, and on December 11, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment. On December 19, the House impeached Clinton.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No ****, Sherlock. But why did he lie, since the affair was legal?
My Dear Watson, why does any man lie about having an extra marital affair?

1. Embarrassment

2. BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT HIS WIFE TO FIND OUT!!!
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 9th August 2018 at 08:10 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 09:03 PM   #2381
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why did Bill Clinton try to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky? The affair was legal.

The answer is obvious: sometimes perfectly legal things are embarrassing. Did you seriously not consider that possibility? Because if you did, then this is a bad faith argument, and if you didn't, you should be embarrassed for missing this rather prosaic possibility.
I'm trying to picture Trump being embarrassed about anything and it's just not coming to me. Is it possibly because the man has no shame? Or maybe it's my Trump U degree?

Last edited by Fudbucker; 9th August 2018 at 09:06 PM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 09:13 PM   #2382
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,079
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why did Bill Clinton try to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky? The affair was legal.

The answer is obvious: sometimes perfectly legal things are embarrassing. Did you seriously not consider that possibility? Because if you did, then this is a bad faith argument, and if you didn't, you should be embarrassed for missing this rather prosaic possibility.
Yes, it is obvious: he was married.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 11:46 PM   #2383
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Legally speaking, what does that even mean? And how exactly do you think it's different than what Steele did?
You're right that that is a list of all the crimes the Trump team apparently committed, rather than limited to just the Trump Tower meeting. But, for example, Computer Crimes (Espionage) fits for soliciting stolen emails for political gain.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 12:31 AM   #2384
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 18,129
Trump Tweeted

"Jenna Ellis “FBI thought they wouldn’t get caught because they thought that Hillary was going to win. There is overt bias and that depends on whether you are Democrat or Republican - a double standard that needs to stop.”"
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 12:39 AM   #2385
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,480
Well he is technically correct about the last part but only due to his amazing powers of projection.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 01:19 AM   #2386
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
Potential witness Hope Hicks has been offered a job by the Trump administration
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 01:24 AM   #2387
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
https://twitter.com/bopinion/status/1027645899185561600

Quote:
Hope Hicks was...

- On Air Force One when Trump dictated the cover story about Donald Jr.’s meeting
- Working in the White House when Trump decided to fire James Comey

That makes her a potential witness to aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice https://bloom.bg/2AMTCrG
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 01:25 AM   #2388
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
https://twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/s...78000739962882

Quote:
Breaking on @TheBeatWithAri @MSNBC: Mueller is going to subpoena Roger Stone friend Randy Credico
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 02:34 AM   #2389
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 6,202
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
all the more reason to give her a great job, quick.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 04:39 AM   #2390
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,382
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You're right that that is a list of all the crimes the Trump team apparently committed, rather than limited to just the Trump Tower meeting. But, for example, Computer Crimes (Espionage) fits for soliciting stolen emails for political gain.
No. This had nothing to do with the DNC hack. The dirt was allegedly about Clinton deals with Russians. Such dirt, if it exists, would never have been on the DNC server, and so could not have been obtained by hacking the DNC.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 04:47 AM   #2391
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,382
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
... and it was the cover-up that got him into trouble per-se
I know that. And you're still missing the point, which is that the existence of a lie does not prove that the matter lied about was illegal.

In Clinton's case, his lie to the grand jury was illegal. His lie to the press was not. The Trump campaign can only get in legal trouble for lying about the meeting if those lies are to specific people in specific contexts. I have seen no evidence presented that such occurred.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 04:50 AM   #2392
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,382
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
An example but not an analogy? Seriously, that's where you're going with this?
Not all examples are analogies. That's why we have a different word for it. That wasn't supposed to be a parallel for what happened with the Trump campaign, therefore it cannot be an analogy for what happened with the Trump campaign.

And you have merely demonstrated again that you aren't good at reading comprehension.

Quote:
That is how one uses satire to make a point.

You're not good with satire either.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 04:54 AM   #2393
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,382
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The essence of conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to engage in some form of prohibited conduct. The crime is complete upon agreement
And was any agreement reached at the meeting? From all reports I've seen, no. Which means that even if the conduct in question was prohibited (which isn't a given), it still wouldn't qualify as a crime in this case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 05:19 AM   #2394
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. This had nothing to do with the DNC hack. The dirt was allegedly about Clinton deals with Russians. Such dirt, if it exists, would never have been on the DNC server, and so could not have been obtained by hacking the DNC.
Do you have a citation for that?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 10th August 2018 at 05:54 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 05:28 AM   #2395
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,382
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Do you have a citation for that?
Yeah, the email exchanges with Trump Jr. which set up the meetings.

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

If such information existed (not a given), then it wouldn't have been on the DNC server, because Hillary wouldn't have gone through the DNC to do any such dealings. Furthermore, if such information existed (again, not a given), then the Russian government could have obtained it legally through the Russian side of any such dealings. There is no indication that the information on offer was obtained illegally.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 05:54 AM   #2396
Amazer
Graduate Poster
 
Amazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,588
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And was any agreement reached at the meeting? From all reports I've seen, no. Which means that even if the conduct in question was prohibited (which isn't a given), it still wouldn't qualify as a crime in this case.
Wouldn't Trump (Sr and Jr), Manafort, etc. agreeing amongst themselves to indulge in illegal behaviour be enough? And the meeting is evidence that they engaged in this crime?

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk
Amazer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 05:55 AM   #2397
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yeah, the email exchanges with Trump Jr. which set up the meetings.

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

If such information existed (not a given), then it wouldn't have been on the DNC server, because Hillary wouldn't have gone through the DNC to do any such dealings. Furthermore, if such information existed (again, not a given), then the Russian government could have obtained it legally through the Russian side of any such dealings. There is no indication that the information on offer was obtained illegally.
That's a citation that it was about that information. It's not a citation that the meeting had "nothing to do with the DNC hack."
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:03 AM   #2398
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,008
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yeah, the email exchanges with Trump Jr. which set up the meetings.

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

If such information existed (not a given), then it wouldn't have been on the DNC server, because Hillary wouldn't have gone through the DNC to do any such dealings. Furthermore, if such information existed (again, not a given), then the Russian government could have obtained it legally through the Russian side of any such dealings. There is no indication that the information on offer was obtained illegally.
Just from what we already know, the Russians were offering TrumpCo a "thing of value" with the hope of getting sanctions relief, and TrumpCo met with them to discuss it. That is solicitation, and it doesn't even matter whether or not the dirt actually existed or how it was obtained, or that TrumpCo didn't think the dirt was worth the price. We don't even know about that last one, since there's no reason to believe TrumpCo's fifth version of what happened. What we do know is that he dictated a lie about that meeting; that there were numerous other secret contacts; that after the election, Trump tried very hard to find ways to lift the sanctions without Congressional action; that he delayed implementing new ones until he was pressured; and that his pattern of kissing Putin's ass includes betraying America's intelligence agencies, Department of Justice and free press in Helsinki.

You should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to defend this, but like Trump himself, the Party of Trump is completely shameless. That is why it must be burned to the ground.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:05 AM   #2399
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,382
Originally Posted by Amazer View Post
Wouldn't Trump (Sr and Jr), Manafort, etc. agreeing amongst themselves to indulge in illegal behaviour be enough?
They agreed to listen to the Russians. I don't see how you can criminalize listening.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:06 AM   #2400
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,382
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That's a citation that it was about that information. It's not a citation that the meeting had "nothing to do with the DNC hack."
We don't have any evidence that they weren't discussing the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe either.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.