That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
People don't think. They feel.YellowKing wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:22 am I just don't get the complete lack of critical thinking in this country. To believe this is a conspiracy you have to believe:
Normally, if a lawyer starts speaking for his client, the context surrounding how the lawyer came to be doing that is protected by the attorney client privilege. In other words, if I'm at a deposition, and a lawyer makes a statement, I cannot ask the client whether he told his lawyer to make that statement. Answering that question would waive the privilege, and so any good lawyer will instruct his client not to answer.Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:37 am Axios
John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.
The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
...
Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."
Also, if Trump made the argument that Dowd did this unilaterally without his knowledge, couldn't Mueller then depose Dowd and ask him about the context of why and how he wrote the tweet? It's not protected by attorney-client privilege if it's not the result of the client's communications / will.Kurth wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:09 pmNormally, if a lawyer starts speaking for his client, the context surrounding how the lawyer came to be doing that is protected by the attorney client privilege. In other words, if I'm at a deposition, and a lawyer makes a statement, I cannot ask the client whether he told his lawyer to make that statement. Answering that question would waive the privilege, and so any good lawyer will instruct his client not to answer.Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:37 am Axios
John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.
The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
...
Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."
It seems to me that a good case could be made that by (1) tweeting as Trump; and (2) publicly stating that the Trump tweet was actually Dowd's tweet and not Trump's, Trump/Dowd have waived the privilege. That would mean that if Trump were ever to be deposed, it could be difficult for his legal team to object to questions about their communications with Trump about the tweet in question, and, perhaps, his tweets generally. That could be a big issue for them.
Two caveats: First, it's the client's privilege to waive, so if Trump could argue that Dowd did all of this unilaterally without Trump's authorization, that would change things. Of course, Dowd would also face some very serious ethical issues that might impact his ability to practice law in the future if that were the case. Second, I'm not expert on executive privilege, so that might be an issue, too.
I see what you did there, there.
That's a weird explanation. That is Trump talking, then, not the lawyer, even if Trump was talking at the lawyer's urging (even using Trump's words). So we're back in "Trump is essentially admitting to obstruction of justice" land.Tao wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:11 pm Just for clarification; the story is that Dowd drafted the language of the Tweet and then delivered it to a WH aide by phone (Dowd was asked to produce the email and claimed he dictated by phone so no paper trail), the aide/person then dictated to Trump who fired off the tweet. I suppose this is to imply Trump did not admit to anything as he was simply repeating what someone else said to write.
Well, the election certainly didn't dissuade them from that belief.YellowKing wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:48 pm These guys are like Scooby Doo villain levels of incompetence. It's somewhat adorable that they think we're all as clueless as their base.
Should be "alleged child molester", if anything.msteelers wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:58 pm I must be out of sorts today, lots of things are going over my head.
What’s the issue with the photo?
If anything "accused" is more accurate, since there are no legal filings alleging crimes by Moore (since the statute of limitations has long since passed).Chaz wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 pm But he's being accused by multiple women. How is "accused" not accurate? I guess it is if you're limiting it to bringing legal charges, but he's definitely been accused.
I dunno. It pretty well sums up the key issue with Trump endorsing Moore. Had these child molestation accusations not surfaced, Trump endorsing Moore would hardly make news (because of course he would endorse the GOP nominee). Trump choosing to endorse Moore notwithstanding the child molestation accusations *is* the story here.malchior wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:07 pm It's 100% accurate but certainly could be taken as a bit of trolling.
CNN is constantly being singled out by the president of the US. He recently put some of their international reporters at risk by undermining their legitimacy. The banner is absolutely more than I would tolerate in normal times, but in this case, I think I can give CNN a pass.malchior wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:07 pm It's 100% accurate but certainly could be taken as a bit of trolling.
For civil, it's passed. For penal, it hasn't and doesn't:El Guapo wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:34 pmIf anything "accused" is more accurate, since there are no legal filings alleging crimes by Moore (since the statute of limitations has long since passed).Chaz wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 pm But he's being accused by multiple women. How is "accused" not accurate? I guess it is if you're limiting it to bringing legal charges, but he's definitely been accused.
Although the civil SOL is very short, Alabama gives prosecutors a lot of time to file violent or childhood sexual abuse charges. The criminal statutes of limitations vary depending on the severity of the offense. The criminal statutes of limitations include:
* No statute of limitations: rape, violent sexual abuse, sexual abuse with the threat of violence, and any sexual abuse of a victim under the age of 16,
* Other felony sexual abuse: three years, and
* Misdemeanor abuse: one year.
But as El Guapo said, the banner contains everything that makes it a story. Is it that it's too succinct? If it were a paragraph, with a single sentence explaining that Moore has recently been accused by multiple women who were under age at the time of the incidents, would that make it better for you?malchior wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:43 pm Fair enough on giving CNN a break but this is another 'look where we are moment'.
Interesting.Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:40 pmFor civil, it's passed. For penal, it hasn't and doesn't:El Guapo wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:34 pmIf anything "accused" is more accurate, since there are no legal filings alleging crimes by Moore (since the statute of limitations has long since passed).Chaz wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 pm But he's being accused by multiple women. How is "accused" not accurate? I guess it is if you're limiting it to bringing legal charges, but he's definitely been accused.
Although the civil SOL is very short, Alabama gives prosecutors a lot of time to file violent or childhood sexual abuse charges. The criminal statutes of limitations vary depending on the severity of the offense. The criminal statutes of limitations include:
* No statute of limitations: rape, violent sexual abuse, sexual abuse with the threat of violence, and any sexual abuse of a victim under the age of 16,
* Other felony sexual abuse: three years, and
* Misdemeanor abuse: one year.
So the court of public opinion is all that's left.At the time, the statute of limitations for bringing felony charges involving sexual abuse of a minor would have expired three years after the alleged incidents, or sometime between 1980 and 1983. Neither Corfman nor Jones filed a police report after the alleged incidents and no charges were ever brought against Moore.
Alabama law was later changed to remove the statute of limitations for "any sex offense involving a victim under 16 years of age." However, the change only applied to crimes committed before Jan. 7, 1985 -years after the alleged Moore incidents- for which there were no existing statute of limitations law, meaning Moore couldn't be brought up on criminal charges now in connection to sexual abuse charges from 1977 to 1979.
I'm pretty sure obstruction of justice would be a violation of the Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Here's the relevant bit which just about every junior high-schooler has memorized at one point or another:Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:37 am Axios
John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.
The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
...
Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Dowd's argument seems like more of an anti-impeachment argument than a obstruction of justice argument. It's hard for me to see "the President by definition cannot obstruct justice" as holding up in court. I can, however, see Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell using it as a reason to not impeach Trump over obstruction of justice allegations, however.Pyperkub wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:58 pmI'm pretty sure obstruction of justice would be a violation of the Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Here's the relevant bit which just about every junior high-schooler has memorized at one point or another:Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:37 am Axios
John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.
The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
...
Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You can see Mitch "the tax bill is revenue neutral" McConnell doing that, can you? You must have quite the imagination.El Guapo wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:00 pm Dowd's argument seems like more of an anti-impeachment argument than a obstruction of justice argument. It's hard for me to see "the President by definition cannot obstruct justice" as holding up in court. I can, however, see Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell using it as a reason to not impeach Trump over obstruction of justice allegations, however.
Federal authorities sought to take back guns from thousands of people the background check system should have blocked from buying weapons because they had criminal records, mental health issues or other problems that would disqualify them.
A USA TODAY review found that the FBI issued more than 4,000 requests last year for agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to retrieve guns from prohibited buyers.
It's the largest number of such retrieval requests in 10 years
last year
Requests. Enforcement would be this year
Yeah, nah.
It was not immediately clear how many gun seizure requests agents successfully executed last year or how many weapons were ultimately recovered. Since multiple firearms can be purchased in a single transaction, the actual number of guns that should have been banned could be even higher.
OK, reading comprehension failIsgrimnur wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:29 pmYeah, nah.
It was not immediately clear how many gun seizure requests agents successfully executed last year or how many weapons were ultimately recovered. Since multiple firearms can be purchased in a single transaction, the actual number of guns that should have been banned could be even higher.
It isn't so much unfair as it perhaps wasn't wise. Big difference. Anyway I was more remarking there that here we are with a major outlet running that banner at all. Ridiculous times.GreenGoo wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:49 pmBut as El Guapo said, the banner contains everything that makes it a story. Is it that it's too succinct? If it were a paragraph, with a single sentence explaining that Moore has recently been accused by multiple women who were under age at the time of the incidents, would that make it better for you?malchior wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:43 pm Fair enough on giving CNN a break but this is another 'look where we are moment'.
Moore, while a bit of a character and having some crazy ideas about guns and god, both of which would make him more news worthy and these facts would probably have been included in the banner if he wasn't reputably accused of child molestation.
I'm not sure how they can put the relevant information into a banner without setting off your "unfair" alarm.
I disagree with it being unwise. CNN (and other cable news) running with 'balanced' headlines / chyrons / etc. during the campaign, as opposed to ones that were true even if harsh, is a big part of how we got into this mess. They should absolutely run chyrons like this that are objectively defensible and true, even if they may come across as harsh / partisan / etc. And Trump's going to attack CNN regardless of what they do (well, unless they fold and become obsequious, of course).malchior wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:44 pmIt isn't so much unfair as it perhaps wasn't wise. Big difference. Anyway I was more remarking there that here we are with a major outlet running that banner at all. Ridiculous times.GreenGoo wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:49 pmBut as El Guapo said, the banner contains everything that makes it a story. Is it that it's too succinct? If it were a paragraph, with a single sentence explaining that Moore has recently been accused by multiple women who were under age at the time of the incidents, would that make it better for you?malchior wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:43 pm Fair enough on giving CNN a break but this is another 'look where we are moment'.
Moore, while a bit of a character and having some crazy ideas about guns and god, both of which would make him more news worthy and these facts would probably have been included in the banner if he wasn't reputably accused of child molestation.
I'm not sure how they can put the relevant information into a banner without setting off your "unfair" alarm.
I agree in part and disagree in another.El Guapo wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:49 pm I disagree with it being unwise. CNN (and other cable news) running with 'balanced' headlines / chyrons / etc. during the campaign, as opposed to ones that were true even if harsh, is a big part of how we got into this mess. They should absolutely run chyrons like this that are objectively defensible and true, even if they may come across as harsh / partisan / etc. And Trump's going to attack CNN regardless of what they do (well, unless they fold and become obsequious, of course).
I just don't think it's trolling. It's an entirely fair and defensible descriptor of the story (which is uncomfortable and harsh in nature, insofar as a child molester is probably the front runner for a Senate seat). I'm not sure how else you would describe it in Chyron length without leaving out key elements of the story.malchior wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:56 pmI agree in part and disagree in another.El Guapo wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:49 pm I disagree with it being unwise. CNN (and other cable news) running with 'balanced' headlines / chyrons / etc. during the campaign, as opposed to ones that were true even if harsh, is a big part of how we got into this mess. They should absolutely run chyrons like this that are objectively defensible and true, even if they may come across as harsh / partisan / etc. And Trump's going to attack CNN regardless of what they do (well, unless they fold and become obsequious, of course).
I agree that media outlets printing harsh truth is better than what we had last year but I just disagree that they need to fall down to Fox News level trolling even if what they say is true. It is minor level criticism really. I would have preferred they went a little softer. Child molester is a bit of a pejorative and it's a bit trashy. However, so is the GOP at this point. Everything is a dumpster fire, etc etc. Call me crazy but I almost pine for standards at this point.