Mueller shows some of his hand

[*michaelsean*]

(11-28-2018, 12:55 PM)jj22 Wrote: Someone found their Hillary card. GO figure.

Can't believe that is still a thing as the Trump and his family continues to use personal cell phones, against the advice of American Intel.

But it clearly is.

Funny how Trump supporters have yet to attack him for that.....

Too ashamed to admit to voting for Trump, but we all know better. How can folks vote for someone and be too ashamed to admit it (probably because they know they've voted for someone so anti-American, someone who colluded with a foreign enemy to attack America), and when he goes down, they don't want to be associated with that vote.

We are on to yall. And we won't forget regardless of yall leaving yourself an out when it hits the fan.

Just curious.  What will "we won't forget" amount to?  Like saying mean things?

[hollodero]

(11-28-2018, 01:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just curious.  What will "we won't forget" amount to?  Like saying mean things?

Yes. Really, really mean things.

Also, reverse whataboutism. What about Trump, what about his demeanor, what about all the folks claiming it's not that big of a deal back then. That one won't go away for probably decades to come.

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 08:38 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Neither would this.

?? This what? I was discussing the collective behavior of four presidents. I mentioned treason to introduce some scale, hopefully to exclude another play of the Clinton card. 

[*michaelsean*]

(11-28-2018, 02:18 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? This what? I was discussing the collective behavior of four presidents. I mentioned treason to introduce some scale, hopefully to exclude another play of the Clinton card. 

Could be my mistake.  I was reading is as Clinton doesn't rise to the level of treason as what Trump is being investigated for might.

[*bfine32*]

(11-28-2018, 11:24 AM)Benton Wrote: It doesn't have to be treasonous to be impeachable. Hell, Clinton just lied about getting a blowjob.

This may bring up some questions on if the president can c ommit treason, but even that's hard to say since we don't know what's in the report.

Well, Dill was the one that brought up Treason.

[*bfine32*]

(11-28-2018, 12:55 PM)jj22 Wrote: Someone found their Hillary card. GO figure.

Can't believe that is still a thing as the Trump and his family continues to use personal cell phones, against the advice of American Intel.

But it clearly is.

Funny how Trump supporters have yet to attack him for that.....

Too ashamed to admit to voting for Trump, but we all know better. How can folks vote for someone and be too ashamed to admit it (probably because they know they've voted for someone so anti-American, someone who colluded with a foreign enemy to attack America), and when he goes down, they don't want to be associated with that vote.

We are on to yall. And we won't forget regardless of yall leaving yourself an out when it hits the fan.

It was actually the Obama card and the Guardians of the Forum deemed it pathetic.

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 03:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Could be my mistake.  I was reading is as Clinton doesn't rise to the level of treason as what Trump is being investigated for might.

Nixon=treason.  Got to do your dirty in wartime. 

Trump may be guilty of "suspicious conspiracy" or something. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

But I am thinking more along the lines of "high crimes and misdemeanors," beginning with obstruction of justice.  

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 03:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was actually the Obama card and the Guardians of the Forum deemed it pathetic.

As well they should.

[fredtoast]

(11-28-2018, 09:55 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Nothing he could have done with Russia would be treason.  It can be a lot of other things, but not treason.  

If he colluded with Russia then what did they get in return?

If trading favors with an enemy country is not treason then what is?

[GMDino]

Meanwhile the POTUS is sharing photos on Twitter accusing everyone who is a Democrat of Treason.

He's a sick man.  Seriously.  Something wrong with him.

It's almost sad.

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 12:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just a few things, as you and your buddies use this tactic frequently.  Many, if not most, of the people who respond to your bedwetting threads didn't vote for Trump.  You, and your ilk, also tend to conflate us pointing out that, in many instances, you're acting hysterical as a defense of Trump.  It is not.  Pointing out your shameless hypocrisy is also not defending Trump, it is holding your hypocrisy to the light.

I appreciate you're allowing me the time to point these things out.  

A series of claims here, with no demonstration, not even specific examples. No "tactic" is identified. No instance of "conflation." Persuasion is left to the adjectives and whatever emotion they can generate.

Absent demonstration, no hypocrisy is "held to the light." And absent demonstration, calling another list member "hypocritical" and "hysterical" is the sort of personal attack which sends threads south (and which we generally don't see in the posts of Dino and his "ilk").

Yesterday on the "Obama Judges" thread (#25), you really didn't like "speculation being stated as fact."  You claimed "assumptions and inferences" should not "be stated as definitive proof of anything."  Sounded good to you yesterday, very high-roadish. But today calling another forum member and his ilk "hypocritical"--stating inferences as fact--sounded better. And so the rules changed. Feelings are unloaded on the thread, even if nothing has really been "pointed out."  What will tomorrow bring? More high road or more unloading on "shameless hypocrisy"?

[*michaelsean*]

(11-28-2018, 04:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If he colluded with Russia then what did they get in return?

If trading favors with an enemy country is not treason then what is?

For it to be treason, the enemy has to be a country in which you have an open or declared war. We are at peace with Russia.  Which is why you could still technically have treason involving N Korea or ISIS.  I mean Aldrich Ames wasn't accused of treason.  

I mean the definition has been made so tight that conspiring to levy a war against the US is not treason if you haven't actually fielded an armed group to do so.

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 04:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If he colluded with Russia then what did they get in return?

If trading favors with an enemy country is not treason then what is?

Got to be war time.  E.g., If I sell government secrets to the Russians today, it may cost American lives and do horrible damage andsubject me to prosecution for espionage, but not for treason. 

It might be Trump could be hammered for sabotage; there is an espionage and sabotage act.

As far as what the Russians get in return--that would be an "asset."

Imagine how happy you would be if you were the head of the FSB, for years counting yourself extremely lucky if you could turn some mid-level functionary in the CIA or State Department, then in 2016 into your lap falls the person occupying the highest office in the U.S. government, someone whose psychological profile offers a roadmap for manipulation. You'd hardly be able to answer a question like "what do we get in return" because the possibilities are now so boundless and unimaginable. Imagine your own ambassador and foreign minister in the very Oval Office, with no U.S. intel professionals hovering about, as your agents record Trump's babble about classified intel on Syria. Virtually anything the president says is automatically "declassified" so no one can prosecute him.  You want to keep that guy in office and talking to your guys, right?  As your foreign policy unfolds sans international resistance with U.S. leadership, your gifted asset just keeps on giving.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-28-2018, 04:53 PM)Dill Wrote: A series of claims here, with no demonstration, not even specific examples. No "tactic" is identified. No instance of "conflation." Persuasion is left to the adjectives and whatever emotion they can generate.

If you read this sub-forum and actually need me to cite examples to be aware of this then you need to remove your head from your posterior post haste.

Quote:Absent demonstration, no hypocrisy is "held to the light." And absent demonstration, calling another list member "hypocritical" and "hysterical" is the sort of personal attack which sends threads south (and which we generally don't see in the posts of Dino and his "ilk").

Yesterday on the "Obama Judges" thread (#25), you really didn't like "speculation being stated as fact."  You claimed "assumptions and inferences" should not "be stated as definitive proof of anything."  Sounded good to you yesterday, very high-roadish. But today calling another forum member and his ilk "hypocritical"--stating inferences as fact--sounded better. And so the rules changed. Feelings are unloaded on the thread, even if nothing has really been "pointed out."  What will tomorrow bring? More high road or more unloading on "shameless hypocrisy"?

Why do I imagine a guy holding a perfumed handkerchief to his nose as I read this?  Is the air still breathable up on that high horse?

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 05:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: For it to be treason, the enemy has to be a country in which you have an open or declared war.  We are at peace with Russia.  Which is why you could still technically have treason involving N Korea or ISIS.  I mean Aldrich Ames wasn't accused of treason.  

I mean the definition has been made so tight that conspiring to levy a war against the US is not treason if you haven't actually fielded an armed group to do so.

A historical reason for that. "Treason" used to cover most any violent resistance to most any authority--like a servant striking or killing a master. The English crown, by the early 17th century, was defining every little resistance to the king's law, and to people carrying out that law, as high treason, treason against the state. E.g., punching a tax collector or ignoring a sumptuary law could be treason, as the state was so identified with the person of the king. (Punching said tax collector could be legally the same as punching the king.)  The application of treason was rolled back somewhat after 1688, when parliament gained real power, but our founders wanted nothing close to that.  So our treason cases generally involve spying during wartime or taking up arms. A West Virginian named Walter Allen was convicted of treason in 1921 because he led a miners strike which resulted in armed miners fighting law enforcement--even though the US was not at war with another country. Haven't read the case but I am assuming the event was framed as an insurrection, like the Whisky Rebellion. Thousands of miners (many WWI vets) organized themselves military style and to march on jails and free imprisoned minors. The "Battle of Blair Mountain" resulted.

And yes, spies aren't accused of treason in peace time. Even the Rosenbergs were just convicted of espionage.

[*bfine32*]

(11-28-2018, 05:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: For it to be treason, the enemy has to be a country in which you have an open or declared war.  We are at peace with Russia.  Which is why you could still technically have treason involving N Korea or ISIS.  I mean Aldrich Ames wasn't accused of treason.  

I mean the definition has been made so tight that conspiring to levy a war against the US is not treason if you haven't actually fielded an armed group to do so.

I think folks rewrite the definition of many things if it's Trump.

Yesterday a "chemical Attack on Children"

Today "Treason for.............well, we don't know yet, but we're sure it's pretty bad". 

[GMDino]

(11-28-2018, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think folks rewrite the definition of many things if it's Trump.

Yesterday a "chemical Attack on Children"

Today "Treason for.............well, we don't know yet, but we're sure it's pretty bad". 

Eh, some people will defend anything because of Trump too.

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 05:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you read this sub-forum and actually need me to cite examples to be aware of this then you need to remove your head from your posterior post haste.

Why do I imagine a guy holding a perfumed handkerchief to his nose as I read this?  Is the air still breathable up on that high horse?

LOl Sounds like "assumptions and inferences" can be "definitive proof" when you want them to be.  Saves a lot of work.

The view from my high horse is pretty good, covers a lot of threads.  I see no examples.

And neither do you.  Or you'd not be substituting imagined vignette's for argument and pleading for exemption from the standard of evidence you apply to others. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-28-2018, 06:06 PM)Dill Wrote: LOl Sounds like "assumptions and inferences" can be "definitive proof" when you want them to be.  Saves a lot of work.

It doesn't, but congrats on not overloading us with your erudite grasp of the English language.  I know I'm frequently impressed. 

Quote:The view from my high horse is pretty good, covers a lot of threads.  I see no examples.

You've clearly done a very through search then.  Well done!

Quote:And neither do you.  Or you'd not be substituting imagined vignette's for argument and pleading for exemption from the standard of evidence you apply to others. 

I couldn't care less about finding even one example, other than the one in this thread that prompted my post.  You could look at any jj12 thread though, they're rather replete with them.  Or you could continue to pretend it doesn't happen.  Who am I to take away the pleasant fictions of my elders?

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 07:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It doesn't, but congrats on not overloading us with your erudite grasp of the English language.  I know I'm frequently impressed. 

You've clearly done a very through search then.  Well done!

I couldn't care less about finding even one example, other than the one in this thread that prompted my post.  You could look at any jj12 thread though, they're rather replete with them.  Or you could continue to pretend it doesn't happen.  Who am I to take away the pleasant fictions of my elders?

LOL "us."    

You still haven't delineated "the one" in this thread. Then more gesturing towards others' posts.  Examples somewhere in JJ's threads?  

And you were so angry about what you now couldn't care less to find. 

So I'm "pretending" that what you can't, or couldn't care less to prove, doesn't happen? 

What would you think of a prosecutor who told a skeptical jury to just quit pretending the defendant is innocent or "go search for proof" themselves?  "Shouldn't need me to find evidence!"  If you don't have evidence, then they must have "fictions."

Petition to advance ad hominem accusation without evidence--not granted from this quarter.