monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Brennan don't do evidence.

Blue, he don't do logic, eh, Finn?

Maybe I shouldn't have said "he." Women have something of a reputation for often letting extreme emotion overwhelm logical analysis and lucidity. I wonder if Blue is female, eh?

He bet with me the use of his screen name against mine that Hillary would win...😱

His last post:

'Bye.
Forums:
Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Post: # 6,300,745 • NextView Profilebobsal u1553115
REPLYQUOTEREPORT Wed 9 Nov, 2016 06:49 am
I keep my bets.

Regarding tRump's win: better start hoarding. Better get armed.

"I retract none of the warnings that I issued about the likelihood of catastrophe and crisis on his watch. I fear the risks of a Trump presidency as I have feared nothing in our politics before. But he will be the president, thanks to a crude genius that identified all the weak spots in our parties and our political system and that spoke to a host of voters for whom that system promised at best a sustainable stagnation under the tutelage of a distant and self-satisfied elite. So we must hope that he has the wit to be more than a wrecker, more than a demagogue, and that his crude genius can actually be turned, somehow, to the common good.

And if that hope is dashed, we must find ways to resist him — all of us, right and left, in the new chapter of American history that has opened very unexpectedly tonight.


His last private message to me:


No. I am very disappointed they elected one anyway. How could your head be so full of ****. Now go **** yourself

You probably are assuming to much. You're a liberal. It's what you do.

A great many people (Trump supporters or not) are simply asking "Where's the beef?" and pointing out that virtually everyone in the know (including Democrats like Dianne Feinstein) when asked has responded that they know of no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. It follows of course that if there is no evidence than wild assertions of collusion are being overplayed. Do you get that?

I don't think anyone is shocked that the Democrats are overplaying their hand or can't understand why they are attempting to take down the Trump presidency. Unfortunately, it's not at all surprising that they have dedicated themselves to a soft coup.

You seem to be suggesting that this is politics as usual and no one should be outraged. That's a pretty jaded view and one that I'm not ready to adopt, however if you are saying, as it appears you are, that:

"Sure this is all bullshit but it's what both parties do."

...then leave it at that and have the intellectual honesty not to spread more bullshit about it.

That perv should feel lucky. A whole lot of chumps lost a whole lot of money, fortunes in some cases, betting on Hillary (and often giving odds).

Of course the biggest chumps of all were not the ones placing bets in Vegas. They were the corporate lobbyist campaign donors who were betting big that their "investments" would pay off bigtime after she was elected. Some of their losses have to be counted in the tens of millions.

I made $500 from a liberal in my extended family...hahaha.

One can argue quite a lot of things while still being full of shite.

I would contend that a much more credible argument is that the story rose to national attention because the prohibitive favorite in the election lost and rather than blaming her or her campaign it was much more convenient to blame the Russians.

This assertion was, at the same time, very useful in disputing the legitimacy of Trump's victory. A real twofor.

Yes, you can argue that in the absence of leaked DNC and Podesta e-mails that confirmed a great many people's worst opinions of Clinton and the Democrats that Hillary would have won, but it would be a very weak argument indeed.

The Russians may have engineered the leaks but they couldn't engineer voters' response to them.

As you know there is absolutely no evidence that the Russians managed to manipulate vote counts and there is no one in a position to know for certain who alleges any such thing happened.

So how exactly did the Russian meddling work?

The much talked about Russian trolls pervading American social media convinced vast numbers of Clinton supporters or those on fence to vote for Trump?

Wild attempts at disinformation such as the pedophile ring operating in a DC pizza place convinced vast numbers of Clinton supporters or those on the fence to vote for Trump?

Revelations of the antics of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign that merely reinforced what a vast number of people already believed convinced vast numbers of Clinton supporters or those on the fence to vote for Trump?

It certainly appears that the Russians did attempt to meddle in the election as they have attempted in numerous prior elections here and abroad, and as the US has attempted in foreign elections.

Arguing that they were successful in actually engineering a result that would not otherwise have happened is simply not credible and plays into the Democrat's design to deflect blame from their inept standard bearer and her arrogant and incompetent campaign staff.

It is also quite obviously an effort to cast a shadow on Trump's victory. I've no doubt that a great swathe of Clinton Lovers and/or Trump Haters believe, like you, that the Russians were successful, but I also doubt that the Democrat powers that be actually believe it to be the case. Of course they're not going to admit it because the argument is doing such a good job of giving Trump and the Republicans fits. (Just ask maporche)

Charlie Daniels’ Open Letter to Chuck Schumer: You’ve Opened Pandora’s Box

Charlie Daniels By Charlie Daniels | May 24, 2017 | 12:17 PM EDT

Sen. Schumer, I don't live in your constituency, but in the larger picture, you live in mine and every other legal, taxpaying American citizen who is affected by the power you hold in your political party, your blind allegiance to it and the obstructionist posture to anything that doesn't directly benefit it.

There's something sinister about seeing you bent over the lectern in the Senate Chamber, your countenance resembling what I would imagine Edgar Allen Poe's would look like reciting one of his macabre tales of doom and gloom, as if there is not one drop of happiness in your life, forecasting a dismal future for America if anything President Trump proposes passes both houses, is signed and becomes law.
I know you're disappointed. I know you had the balloons ready to fall and the corks halfway out of the champagne bottles on election night. And I know you just can't face the truth that what happened in the election was exactly the same thing you continue to do: you forgot about the working people; you forgot about the empty factories of the rust belt; you took for granted the high crime, low employment inner cities you've made unkept promises to for decades.
Instead of looking inward at the real cause for your party's loss, you had to find a scapegoat, and if it hadn't been Russia, it would have been something else.
Sen. Schumer, will you do me and America a favor? Will you lay your hand on a Holy Bible and tell America that you believe in your heart that Donald Trump has actually colluded with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government to the detriment of the United States of America?
You see, sir, everything you've come up with so far, and you've been at it since well before the election, has been superficial. And I believe that anything your special counsel will come up with will also be superficial, guilt by association, the fires of triviality fanned and proliferated by a tilted, hate-filled media and super partisan politicians.
Sen. Schumer, what goes around truly does come around, and if, or should I say when, this pendulum starts swinging back the other way, do you realize that Mr. Mueller could actually find a lot more dirt on prominent Democrats than they do Trump and his staff?
You have opened Pandora's Box, sir, and basically thrown away the lid.
Now it’s time to chop the log and let the chips fall where they will.
If President Trump has actually colluded with the Russians or any other foreign government, or sold out my beloved nation in any way, I definitely want to know about it, and if he has, he should be impeached and thrown out of office in disgrace. But right now, you're a hell of a long way from proving even one iota of your accusations.
Now let's turn this coin over.
Did or did not Hillary Clinton sign off on allowing a Russian agency to purchase a company holding up to 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity?
Who leaked the classified information that started this ball rolling? For the investigation to be valid, that has to come out.
Did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's State department, through incompetence, indifference or both, allow four American citizens to die in Benghazi?
Be careful how you answer this one because the jury and some explosive evidence are still out there, and it all could well be brought to light in a few months.
Did or did not Hillary Clinton, by using an unsecured server and allowing Huma Abedin to email copies to her husband, Anthony Weiner, expose classified documents?
Was there collusion between the Obama administration and the IRS to disallow tax free status to conservative organizations?
If not, why did Lois Lerner plead the Fifth Amendment and retire with full benefits?
You see, sir, Pandora is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and what is revealed in the coming months could well be a two-edged sword.
Be careful what you wish for.
What do you think?
Pray for our troops, our police and the peace of Jerusalem.
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels

Don't worry your pretty little head about foreign threats, there are no foreign threats (well OK, maybe the radical islamist terrorists and anybody of Spanish descent) Donald Trump will keep you safe. Believe me, you're gonna get so tired of being safe, you won't believe it.

A very interesting article...can't wait to see how the Never Trumper looney left Snowflakes answer this one.



Gregg Jarrett: What is Robert Mueller investigating (since collusion is not a crime)?

Gregg Jarrett
By Gregg Jarrett Published May 23, 2017 Fox News



Gregg Jarrett: Mueller should resign as special counsel
Robert Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility.


As special counsel, Mueller can engage in all manner of spectacular jurisprudential gymnastics. However, it will not change the fact that colluding with Russia is not, under America’s criminal codes, a crime. It’s just not there.

Maybe it should be. Perhaps someday Congress will pass a law criminalizing such conduct in political campaigns. But for now, there is not a single statute outlawing collaboration with a foreign government in a U.S. presidential election. Or any election, for that matter.

Why, then, are so many people who are following the Trump-Russia saga under the mistaken impression that collusion is a crime? Principally, because it is a loaded word with an historic criminal connotation.

“Collusion” became a prominent part of the legal lexicon when Benjamin Harrison occupied the White House and Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 outlawing collusion in some business practices. Specifically, price fixing and other anticompetitive activities became a criminal offense under Section 1 of the Act. Almost overnight, the word “collusion” was converted into a legal pejorative.

But collusion is only criminal in an antitrust setting. It has nothing whatsoever to do with elections. Yet that has not stopped politicians, pundits and journalists from either misunderstanding the concept and/or misconstruing its application to the Trump-Russia hysteria that has reached a deafening pitch.


Both the Department of Justice and the FBI seem equally oblivious.

Mueller’s Marching Orders

Under the law granting him legal authority (28 CFR 600), a special counsel is charged with investigating crimes. Only crimes. Nothing else. He has limited jurisdiction. Any other wrongdoing uncovered in the investigation which does not rise to the level of a criminal offense cannot even be made public by the special counsel. That is the law.

So what crime is Mueller instructed to investigate? Let take a look.

In his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”.

But wait. If Mueller is supposed to look for evidence of a crime that is not, by legal definition, a crime…then isn’t the special counsel being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable? Doesn’t the impossibility of his assignment render the exercise futile? The answer is yes.

The only conceivable crime is a tangential one. If it could somehow be shown that someone in the Trump campaign aided and abetted the hacking of the Democratic National Committee or the campaign of Hillary Clinton, then perhaps a criminal charge might be made. But as Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Fox News, “I’m sure that didn’t happen”.

How can he be so sure? Common sense. There is no evidence the Trump campaign had the technical expertise to hack anything. Knowing about a computer theft or even verbally encouraging it is not enough under the law. It requires an overt act that assists in the commission of the crime. It appears that no one, including the Trump campaign, even knew about Russia’s hacking efforts until after they were accomplished and made public.

Any Related Matters

Rosenstein’s order to the special counsel authorizes him to investigate “any other matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” This is the usual all-encompassing phrase which allows a special counsel to run rampant in an almost limitless direction to dig up dirt on potential targets.

As I pointed out in a recent column, Mueller’s probe will inevitably morph into an investigation of President Trump’s meeting with James Comey and his subsequent firing of the FBI Director. Amid partisan accusations of obstruction of justice, the special counsel will surely examine whether the president corruptly attempted to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of the law, as the law defines it. (18 USC 1501)

If the president told Comey he hopes former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn can be cleared because “he’s a good guy,” it is not enough to sustain an obstruction charge. Hoping or wishing for an outcome is not the same as influencing, obstructing or impeding. Nor is firing the FBI Director. As Comey himself admitted, the president has the constitutional authority to fire him for any reason or no reason at all.

Furthermore, the term “corruptly” is specifically defined under18 USC 1515(b) as “acting with an improper purpose, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.” The president’s actions do not come close to satisfying the requirements of acting corruptly.

The most recent accusation is that President Trump asked two of his top intelligence officials, Daniel Coats and Adm. Michael Rogers, to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. If Rogers and Coats had no such evidence of collusion, then asking them to tell the truth is not illegal. But at this point, we do not know what exactly occurred during those alleged conversations.

What we do know is that collusion in a political campaign is not, by itself, a crime.

How, then, is it possible to obstruct the investigation of a crime… which is not a crime?


Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney

Heh, John, I already posted excerpts from that a few pages back. I wondered aloud if any cheese-eater would make any comment whatsoever.

So far, nothing I've seen, as expected.

https://able2know.org/topic/355218-1000#post-6430143

As noted there, the left-wing Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, said the same damn thing.

There just aint no crime.

Don't expect any cheese-eater to ever acknowledge that. But just in case, as a back-up, they try to claim you can legitimately impeach for matters that aren't crimes. They seem to think they have the right to impeach any President whose policies they don't agree with.

Of course they neither know nor care a bit about the U.S. Constitution, which says:

.

Oh sorry man...didn't catch that...didn't mean to rain on your parade. You da man

No problem at all. The reason for my post was to note, that, as predicted, the cheese-eaters won't even acknowledge this simple legal fact.

Of course not...doesn't fit their twisted narrative.

OBAMMY'S LEGACY


Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, is becoming an increasing problem in Northern Virginia.

Obama admin knew gang members were part of illegal immigrant surge: Whistleblower

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Wednesday, May 24, 2017
The Obama administration knowingly let in at least 16 admitted MS-13 gang members who arrived at the U.S. as illegal immigrant teenagers in 2014, a top senator said Wednesday, citing internal documents that showed the teens were shipped to juvenile homes throughout the country.


Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said a whistleblower turned over Customs and Border Protection documents from 2014 detailing the 16 persons who were caught crossing the border.

“CBP apprehended them, knew they were MS-13 gang members, and they processed and disbursed them into our communities,” Mr. Johnson, Wisconsin Republican, said.


The gang members were part of the surge of UAC, or “unaccompanied alien children,” as the government labels them, who overwhelmed the Obama administration in 2014, leaving Homeland Security struggling to staunch the flow from Central America.


Officials at the time said the children should be treated as refugees fleeing horrific conditions back home — though security analysts said the children were prime recruiting territory for gangs already in the U.S.

Mr. Johnson said the image of UAC as little children is misleading. Out of nearly 200,000 UAC apprehended between from 2012 to 2016, 68 percent were ages 15, 16 or 17 — meaning older teens. The majority were also male, making them targets for gang recruiting.


Mr. Johnson revealed the documents at a hearing on the dangers posed by MS-13.


Sen. Claire McCaskill, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said she wants to get rid of gangs, but criticized the release of the whistleblower documents, saying it may have hurt active investigations or otherwise dented efforts to get the gang members out of the country.

“I have concerns that these documents were released so quickly,” she said.


The UAC surge has long been suspected of providing a new pool of recruits for MS-13 and other gangs in the U.S., though the actual numbers are unclear.

There have been a series of anecdotal reports, however, of UAC who were placed into community schools and ended up taking part in violent gang activities.


Copyright © 2017 The Washington Times, LLC

It looks like the GOP candidate in Montana has just screwed himself. The following is from...pregnant pause...FoxNews
Fox

PS... the right wing justifications for this now coming up on twitter are something else.

Absolutely disgusting. I've brought up this problemin this thread before, too. As usual, the cheese-eaters defend it when they don't deny it.

Even though it's limited to those who "admitted" being MS13 gang members, "at least 16" is undoubtedly a vast understatement of the number of gang members who flounced in and were immediately given housing, food, and other welfare benefits by Obama. When they arrived with gang tats on their sorry face, most of them had the sense to say that they had crossed the gang, and were seeking refuge from retaliation.

Anybody, anytime, anyplace would bash in the face of some bastard who is crowding you and won't back off when told. What's the issue here? This will probably get him elected in a landslide.

And you think that will hurt his chances? Have you been to Montana?

Assault and battery.