192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Builder
 
  -1  
Fri 24 May, 2019 02:42 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
LOL.........


Which part of the video did you not comprehend, Bill?

The elephant in the room that everyone is avoiding, is Clinton's criminal behavior, and the FBI and DOJ's collusion, in covering for her.
hightor
 
  1  
Fri 24 May, 2019 04:44 am
@Builder,
I thought her behavior didn't meet the level of an indictable crime. That would explain the absence of prosecution without having to resort to the "deep state" conspiracy theory. Here you can read about it in detail: Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Fri 24 May, 2019 05:45 am
@hightor,
We won't really know if there are any indictable crimes by members of the Obama Administration until we have the FBI and IRS devote teams of agents to exhaustively go over all of their lives with a fine-toothed comb.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Fri 24 May, 2019 05:46 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Liar. All of my claims can be backed up by actual cites.

I was tired when I wrote this. While I can't fault my words on a factual level, I was grumpier than I would have liked. New reply incoming.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Fri 24 May, 2019 05:47 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Your claim to be dealing with reality does not make your claims any less false than they already are.

My claims have no need of being made less false, because all of my claims are entirely true to begin with.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  2  
Fri 24 May, 2019 06:55 am
Josh Gerstein

Verified account

@joshgerstein
Follow Follow @joshgerstein
More
Rolling out new Assange indictment, DOJ says it's not journalism when one publishes a name the CIA wants kept secret. Yet NYT did that in 2017 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/reader-center/why-we-published-the-name-of-a-covert-cia-official.amp.html … but I don't remember it being charged despite laws on outing undercover CIA personnel
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Fri 24 May, 2019 07:24 am
Typical Trump, when push comes to shove he'd rather lick Putin's arse than support American veterans.

Quote:
A former US marine imprisoned in Russia on suspicion of spying has complained of "abuses and harassment" and says he is a "victim of political kidnap".

Mr Whelan - a citizen of the US, UK, Canada and Ireland - was arrested in late December, accused of espionage.

The 48-year-old denies the charges and told a court on Friday that he had been subjected to threats and abuse by a security service investigator.

The comments came as his pre-trial custody was extended until 29 August.

Mr Whelan told the court that there was "absolutely no legitimacy" to the case against him, describing it as retaliation for US sanctions.

If found guilty, he faces up to 20 years in prison.

He said he had not showered in two weeks, was unable to access medical or dental treatment and had been denied access to books and letters sent to him months ago.

"I've been threatened. My personal safety has been threatened. There are abuses and harassment that I am constantly subjected to," he said.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48398074<br />
izzythepush
 
  1  
Fri 24 May, 2019 07:45 am
This is more relevant today than ever.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 24 May, 2019 09:08 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Typical Trump, when push comes to shove he'd rather lick Putin's arse than support American veterans.



Not completely true as he is willing to pardon US soldiers that had been found guilt of the war crimes such as murdering prisoners.

Quote:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/war-crimes-pardons-trump/index.html

Trump crossed that line this month when he pardoned Michael Behenna, who had been sentenced to prison in 2009 for unpremeditated murder in the killing of an Iraqi detainee and released on parole in 2014 after his sentence was reduced.
That Trump is considering other pardons for military crimes on a short timeline before Memorial Day took the Department of Justice and the Pentagon by surprise and added new context to the pardon power, which he's already used to reward political allies and send political messages.

Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher is charged with stabbing a wounded man to death, shooting at a male and female noncombatant and obstructing justice while deployed in Iraq. His own teammates turned him in, but Gallagher, who has pleaded not guilty, has found defenders in the media and on Capitol Hill.
Navy SEAL Chief Edward Gallagher is charged with murder of Iraqi civilians.
Navy SEAL Chief Edward Gallagher is charged with murder of Iraqi civilians.
He was allowed to leave the brig after Trump tweeted about the case. The President also tweeted about Golsteyn.
"At the request of many, I will be reviewing the case of a 'U.S. Military hero,' Major Matt Golsteyn, who is charged with murder. He could face the death penalty from our own government after he admitted to killing a Terrorist bomb maker while overseas. @PeteHegseth @FoxNews"


The closest a modern president has come to a pardon for war crimes was Richard Nixon's treatment of William Calley, who was convicted of premeditated murder for his role in the Vietnam War My Lai massacre of unarmed civilians in 1968. Nixon released him to house arrest and his life sentence was commuted by Nixon's secretary of the army, Howard Calloway.
The first difficulty of assessing war crimes in the US is that there is no commonly accepted definition of the term and the US is not a party to the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court in 1998. In fact, the Trump administration recently revoked visas for the International Criminal Court chief prosecutor, which CNN reported was part of an effort by the US to deter ICC actions against US service members in Afghanistan.
That doesn't mean the US military is not prosecuting those suspected of war crimes, according to Chris Jenks, a law professor at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law who is a former Army judge advocate. Jenks is an expert in the law of armed conflict who wrote about possible Trump pardons for the Just Security blog. He answered some questions about Trump's possible move and what it could mean for the military justice system.
What is a war crime and are US service members charged with war crimes?



izzythepush
 
  1  
Fri 24 May, 2019 09:46 am
@BillRM,
Not ordinary veterans, convicted war criminals and murderers, which, importantly, didn't get in the way of him licking Putin's arse.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 24 May, 2019 09:58 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Not ordinary veterans, convicted war criminals and murderers,

Not ordinary Muslims, gang rapists and killers. Your country won't even deport them, and took over 10 years to prosecute them. Clean up the shithole where you live and get back to us.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Fri 24 May, 2019 10:39 am
@coldjoint,
Into non sequiturs again, I see.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Fri 24 May, 2019 11:17 am
Quote:
The US is to send 1,500 additional troops to the Middle East for "mostly protective" reasons, President Donald Trump has announced.

"We want to have protection in the Middle East," he told reporters on Friday. He described the latest deployment as "relatively small".

Congress has been notified about the plans, US media report.

Tensions between the US and Iran rose this month, with America sending an aircraft carrier to the region.

The US has also deployed more planes to the Gulf in recent days, with officials saying there was a threat from Iran-backed forces in Iraq.

But only on Thursday, President Donald Trump said he did not think more troops were needed.

"I don't think we're going to need them," he told reporters. "I really don't. I would certainly send troops if we need them."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48404141
revelette1
 
  4  
Fri 24 May, 2019 11:48 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
The US is to send 1,500 additional troops to the Middle East for "mostly protective" reasons, President Donald Trump has announced.

"We want to have protection in the Middle East," he told reporters on Friday. He described the latest deployment as "relatively small".

Congress has been notified about the plans, US media report.

Tensions between the US and Iran rose this month, with America sending an aircraft carrier to the region.

The US has also deployed more planes to the Gulf in recent days, with officials saying there was a threat from Iran-backed forces in Iraq.

But only on Thursday, President Donald Trump said he did not think more troops were needed.

"I don't think we're going to need them," he told reporters. "I really don't. I would certainly send troops if we need them."



So did Trump just lie, or change his mind, or did the military send troops without his permission? Given this administration, any of it is possible. In any event, Iran was not even threat with the last administration. If it is now. Sending troops just will probably make any threat (if there is one) worse. He has been making a crises with Iran for political reasons. It is disgraceful and dangerous. Trump and his administration is a danger to the US and the world.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Fri 24 May, 2019 11:56 am
@revelette1,
There are thousands of pro Iranian militiamen and irregulars in Iraq just waiting to do their patriotic duty.

They don't need to be asked, they're after voting rights.

The majority Shia population in Bahrain, home of the 5th fleet, won't be too upset if someone strikes a blow against the hated Sunni ruling class and their western supporters.

Iran doesn't have to do a thing.
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Fri 24 May, 2019 12:17 pm
@revelette1,
How many US troops were killed by Iranians or Iranian made weapons in Iraq? How many times have they taken US sailors off their boats? Why is it the left always gives Iran a pass for their transgressions?
revelette1
 
  4  
Fri 24 May, 2019 12:45 pm
@izzythepush,
Which is why it is dangerous to stir things up for no good reason. The whole Iran so called crises is a fake crises which will turn into a real one.
revelette1
 
  2  
Fri 24 May, 2019 01:14 pm
@Baldimo,
We shouldn't have troops in Iraq to be killed. There is no reason to still be there. We would save a lot of money and more importantly lives on all sides if we got out of all the places where we don't need to be.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Fri 24 May, 2019 01:14 pm
@revelette1,
there's already been attacks on oil tankers. Trump is blaming Iran, and Iran is blaming the CIA. Whoever was behind it will be way more than arm's length from the perpetrators.

It's not just Iran, there's lots of people wanting to have a pop at occupiers.
revelette1
 
  3  
Fri 24 May, 2019 01:18 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
It's not just Iran, there's lots of people wanting to have a pop at occupiers.


Well, don't sound so agreeable about it.

I wish we get out of all the areas in the ME and let them have the oil and concentrate on renewable energy which from what little I have read, is where the future is anyway.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.44 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 06:13:36