Politics And Current Events

DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19680
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Politics And Current Events

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:43 pm

Why would a nine year old even know about suicide? Or how to do it? At nine, I was still playing with toys and suicide wasn't even something I knew about for years. Kids are growing up way too fast. At any rate, it's very sad.

count2infinity
Posts: 35613
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby count2infinity » Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:47 pm

Some sort of weird string of threats going on right now... Penn State has one as I just got an alert, but apparently there's multiple across the country all at the same-ish time.

count2infinity
Posts: 35613
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby count2infinity » Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:50 pm

Some sort of weird string of threats going on right now... Penn State has one as I just got an alert, but apparently there's multiple across the country all at the same-ish time.
Seems like they're all automated and likely spam trying to get money. Still, seeing that alert and knowing my wife is there right now scared the sh*t out of me... which is exactly what they wanted, I guess.

shafnutz05
Posts: 50378
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Politics And Current Events

Postby shafnutz05 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:51 pm

scared the sh*t out of me... which is exactly what they wanted, I guess.
Letting the terrorists win.

(that would scare the S out of me too)

eddy
Posts: 22309
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:49 am
Location: Emmet's barn loft

Politics And Current Events

Postby eddy » Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:54 pm

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations. https://t.co/RabObXYlB6

eddy
Posts: 22309
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:49 am
Location: Emmet's barn loft

Politics And Current Events

Postby eddy » Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:02 pm

Donald Trump was the third person in the room in Aug. 2015 when Michael Cohen and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker discussed ways Pecker could help counter negative stories about Trump's relationships with women, @NBCNews has confirmed. https://t.co/XQpZcMbYTg

How many lies is it going to take?

Trip McNeely
Posts: 8812
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:02 am

Politics And Current Events

Postby Trip McNeely » Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:15 pm

Donald Trump was the third person in the room in Aug. 2015 when Michael Cohen and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker discussed ways Pecker could help counter negative stories about Trump's relationships with women, @NBCNews has confirmed. https://t.co/XQpZcMbYTg

How many lies is it going to take?
He’s spending during the inauguration is being investigated also

But it doesn’t matter. There is no end to how much he can lie

CBear3
Posts: 7663
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Politics And Current Events

Postby CBear3 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:16 pm

And then you're supposed to believe him when he says that he didn't know what he was doing was illegal.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:50 pm

And then you're supposed to believe him when he says that he didn't know what he was doing was illegal.
It’s not so much believing as it is proving he did or didn’t. Two separate things.

eddy
Posts: 22309
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:49 am
Location: Emmet's barn loft

Politics And Current Events

Postby eddy » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:03 pm

And then you're supposed to believe him when he says that he didn't know what he was doing was illegal.
It’s not so much believing as it is proving he did or didn’t. Two separate things.
Do you find anything alarming about how much he does lie and how many people just take it as gospel?

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:16 pm

And then you're supposed to believe him when he says that he didn't know what he was doing was illegal.

Anyone can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe I've ever seen any court actually rule that the behavior in question (i.e., paying a mistress to STFU) actually violates campaign-finance law. Sure, the stipulation of facts that the National Enquirer signed mentions illegality, and Cohen may be talking about illegality, but whether or not something is in fact illegal is not a question of fact; it's a question of law. The fact that Cohen pleaded out to the charges doesn't mean that someone else (such as Trump) would be bound to agree that the behavior in question is actually illegal.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:17 pm

And then you're supposed to believe him when he says that he didn't know what he was doing was illegal.
It’s not so much believing as it is proving he did or didn’t. Two separate things.
Do you find anything alarming about how much he does lie and how many people just take it as gospel?
Yes.

He does lie at an alarming rate and people do believe him. Though I’m not as alarmed as some of you because I’m already alarmed that anyone can believe any politician.

Trip McNeely
Posts: 8812
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:02 am

Politics And Current Events

Postby Trip McNeely » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:19 pm

And then you're supposed to believe him when he says that he didn't know what he was doing was illegal.
It’s not so much believing as it is proving he did or didn’t. Two separate things.
Do you find anything alarming about how much he does lie and how many people just take it as gospel?
Yes.

He does lie at an alarming rate and people do believe him. Though I’m not as alarmed as some of you because I’m already alarmed that anyone can believe any politician.
Replace Trump with Obama. Would you feel the same way? I’m pretty sure I know the answer

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:21 pm

And then you're supposed to believe him when he says that he didn't know what he was doing was illegal.
It’s not so much believing as it is proving he did or didn’t. Two separate things.
Do you find anything alarming about how much he does lie and how many people just take it as gospel?
Yes.

He does lie at an alarming rate and people do believe him. Though I’m not as alarmed as some of you because I’m already alarmed that anyone can believe any politician.
Replace Trump with Obama. Would you feel the same way? I’m pretty sure I know the answer
No I wouldn’t feel the same way. Obama isn’t as much of a narcissistic ass as Trump. I was less alarmed by the Obama administration’s lies.

Troy Loney
Posts: 27513
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:24 pm

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations. https://t.co/RabObXYlB6
There are some very interesting tidbits in that wsj article. The largest vendor was a company set up 2 months before the inauguration. This was melania’s unpair advisor. The majority of the 25 million they paid to her company went to sub contractors. I am pretty confident that money went to personal trump accounts

Morkle
Posts: 23026
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Politics And Current Events

Postby Morkle » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:32 pm

Donald Trump was the third person in the room in Aug. 2015 when Michael Cohen and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker discussed ways Pecker could help counter negative stories about Trump's relationships with women, @NBCNews has confirmed. https://t.co/XQpZcMbYTg

How many lies is it going to take?
He’s spending during the inauguration is being investigated also

But it doesn’t matter. There is no end to how much he can lie
There were Russians tied to the inauguration getting tickets from politicians.

Wonder if major cash donations we're made.

Morkle
Posts: 23026
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Politics And Current Events

Postby Morkle » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:40 pm

Trump eyeing Kushner to be chief of staff.

AuthorTony
Posts: 8950
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am

Politics And Current Events

Postby AuthorTony » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:45 pm

Trump eyeing Kushner to be chief of staff.
Would that violate the Bobby Kennedy law?

eddy
Posts: 22309
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:49 am
Location: Emmet's barn loft

Politics And Current Events

Postby eddy » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:46 pm

Trump eyeing Kushner to be chief of staff.
:scared:

Gaucho
Posts: 49568
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:31 pm
Location: shootzepucklefraude

Politics And Current Events

Postby Gaucho » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:49 pm

lolol

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:07 pm

And then you're supposed to believe him when he says that he didn't know what he was doing was illegal.

Anyone can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe I've ever seen any court actually rule that the behavior in question (i.e., paying a mistress to STFU) actually violates campaign-finance law. Sure, the stipulation of facts that the National Enquirer signed mentions illegality, and Cohen may be talking about illegality, but whether or not something is in fact illegal is not a question of fact; it's a question of law. The fact that Cohen pleaded out to the charges doesn't mean that someone else (such as Trump) would be bound to agree that the behavior in question is actually illegal.
If I may offer a paraphrase....

There was a guy on TV earlier today who noted that in response to a brief in the Edwards case (I forget for which side) the judge stated that payments to a mistress would indeed qualify as a campaign finance violation if it could be clearly established that such influence was the true intent of the payment. As it stands right now, that's the closest I think we've got.

That pundit set forth key factual differences between what's going on with Trump, and the John Edward prosecution:

1) Temporal relationships:
a) The payment to Edwards' mistress was while they were still engaged in their affair (and I think the funds were used in part to pay for an abortion), whereas Trump's affair(s) were a decade prior to the payments. It is difficult to believe an argument that Trump all of a sudden was worried about Melania learning about these two ladies 3500 days after the fact.
b) the Edwards payment was made in the calendar year before the election... before even a single primary vote had been cast.

2) Need for immediacy: Both Stormy Daniels and Stephanie Clifford had been approach about selling their stories to various media outlets in mid-to-late 2016. In fact, that's how Ms Clifford's story came to be buried - it was one such media outlet that purchased the exclusive rights to her story with the intent (which she did not know) of never publishing it. There was no such threat of broad media publication in the Edwards case, which bolsters his claim that the payment was made proactively to keep his wife (as opposed to voters at large) from finding out.

3) Corroboration: This is possibly the biggest difference. None of the sources of the payments on behalf of Edwards were available to testify as to the purpose and intent behind the payment (I think at least one people involved had actually died before the trial). Conversely two parties have already admitted under oath that the intent of the Trump payments was to protect the candidate from negative press that could adversely influence their election prospects.

The pundit further noted that the only way it would be likely for Trump to face criminal liability for these specific acts (solely from the campaign finance angle) is if he left office either via an electoral loss in 2020, or by removal prior to that. The statue of limitations for the campaign finance violations is five years, so you're looking at August 2021 and October 2021 respectively.

Helluva a thing when you're talking about the only thing keep a president from criminal liability is the fact that he's currently in office.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:10 pm

Trump eyeing Kushner to be chief of staff.
Would that violate the Bobby Kennedy law?
As long as he's unpaid, it's okay. Jared and Ivanka have both been unpaid federal employees since around March 2017.

Besides, Javanka is the de facto Chief of Staff as it is. This would merely formalize it. Although I'm not so sure that being named in a official capacity - with the attendant increase in public scrutiny - would be all that welcome.

eddy
Posts: 22309
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:49 am
Location: Emmet's barn loft

Politics And Current Events

Postby eddy » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:20 pm

Vanity Fair cuts straight to it with their headline

Report: Trump Considering Idiot Son-in-Law for Chief-of-Staff Job

Gaucho
Posts: 49568
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:31 pm
Location: shootzepucklefraude

Politics And Current Events

Postby Gaucho » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:29 pm

Excellent.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:49 pm

There was a guy on TV earlier today who noted that in response to a brief in the Edwards case (I forget for which side) the judge stated that payments to a mistress would indeed qualify as a campaign finance violation if it could be clearly established that such influence was the true intent of the payment. As it stands right now, that's the closest I think we've got.

That is my impression as well. Whether this case is distinguishable from the Edwards case (which didn't generate any appellate cases because Edwards was never convicted) is an open legal question.

Whether one likes Trump or not (or any other politician), it is reprehensible that the campaign-finance laws are so vague and poorly written that it is literally not possible to know whether something is illegal or not.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], NAN, skullman80, the wicked child and 100 guests