Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 361 of 5796 (845381)
12-15-2018 10:31 AM


The truth about the Steele Dossier: Experts compare the infamous memo with Mueller’s findings
quote:
A former U.S. attorney and a Harvard Law student teamed up to revisit the Steele dossier by cross-referencing it with special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings and unveiled which parts of it hold water.
Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg and Harvard Law student Sarah Grant wrote for Lawfare that many of the findings made public as part of Mueller’s probe confirm both specifically and thematically aspects of the dossier.
The dossier holds up well over time, the scholars wrote, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 2:08 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 366 of 5796 (845403)
12-15-2018 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
12-15-2018 2:08 PM


Mueller has released lots of findings including (last week) mult testimonies about Trump committing one or more felonies. There is plenty we don't know about yet.
No part of the dossier has been found to be fake. Some parts have been verified. The point of the article was that further verification is continuing. It's possible the entire thing is true.
The dossier has not been a major part of the investigations. There's plenty of other evidence of crimes
Do you have any relevant evidence? Your unsupported rants don't cut the mustard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 2:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 2:50 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 368 of 5796 (845408)
12-15-2018 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Faith
12-15-2018 2:21 PM


Re: The Gullibility of the Right's Echo Chamber
Mueller has found plenty of evidence of wrongdoing with Russians by top employees of the campaign. None directly involving Trump. Yet. Personally. I think the Russians would let such an uncontrollable blabbermouth in on the gaff.
The acts of which Trump was accused last week by mult people are felonies. Period.
They have everything to do with the campaign. The payoffs were explicitly intended to avoid damaging information coming out just bef the election. They may have changed the result.
Trump can give any amount to his campaign. Allegedly he directed Cohen to pay amounts far exceeding Cohen's limits, using Cohen's own money. Later reimbursement doesn't change that felony.
Opinions differ on whether he can be indicted while in office. There are lots of possible outcomes. But if Trump did what he accused of he committed crimes.
Yeah, right-wing news is frantically trying to spin these facts out of existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 2:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 2:55 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 371 of 5796 (845412)
12-15-2018 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Faith
12-15-2018 2:45 PM


Re: Just a couple of problems with the Left's witch hunt
Gosh, so many lies. McDougal was paid off a few weeks before the 2016 election. AMI explicitly admitted in their plea deal that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election. The Congressional fund is bad but not an excuse for felonies. In 2011, John Edwards was indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly using hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds to hide Hunter during the 2008 presidential race. The following year, he was acquitted on one count of violating campaign finance rules and a federal judge declared a mistrial on five other criminal counts after the jury came back deadlocked. The Justice Department decided to not retry the case. Not particularly relevant.
No country has a wall anywhere near what Trump's proposing in terrain as difficult as the Mexican border. Most illegal cross-border traffic travels via boat, tunnel, or airplane. In 2006 many democrats voted for 700 miles of fence, not a wall, along border sections where such a fence is practical and possibly effect.
There's significant quest wheth the Border Patrol did their best to save Jakelin Caal Maquin. The incident should be investigated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 2:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:11 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 374 of 5796 (845416)
12-15-2018 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Faith
12-15-2018 2:50 PM


Evidence on the dossirr, read the link I posted. What felonies? Obviously your right-wing sources didn't tell YOU. Allegedly Trump instructed Cohen's and Pecker to pay the women off with their own funds for the express purpose of influencing the election which was a few weeks away. Those were illegal campaign contributions, far exceeding the limits on Cohen and AMI, and directing them would be illegal.
The dossier was not the original reason for the investigation. The FBI's Russia investigation began in the summer of 2016 when investigators learned that a Trump campaign foreign policy aide, George Papadopoulos, had been importuned by Russian intelligence operatives in London. They offered him "dirt" on Hillary Clinton and "off-the-record" meetings with Russian officials.
Indictments, guilty pleas, and prison sentences testify to collusion. Not on Trump part. Yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 2:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:27 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 376 of 5796 (845418)
12-15-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
12-15-2018 3:16 PM


Re: The Faith Fact Checker
Four costly investigations into Vince Foster's death. Nine long and costly investigations into Hillary's emails. No evidence of any crimes, not because they got a pass
but because there's no "there" there. (Mishandling classified information is not necessarily a crime, and it's pretty certain Hillary's misdeeds fall under the non-criminal part).
Uranium One? Really? The nothingburgeriest of nothingburgers. Unpacking Uranium One: Hype and Law - Lawfare:
quote:
I am not, in this post, considering the evidencesuch as it isof donations to the Clinton Foundation. My reasoning is simple: if there is no "quo" to be given, the question of a "quid" is moot.)
..
It is unlikely that Secretary Clinton personally participated in the transaction. Her assistant secretary says she did not intervene, and given the nature of the transaction and the apparent lack of controversy, that is a plausible scenario. I can see no reason to doubt his account.
The structure of CFIUS is such that no one agency can control the outcome of the consideration. Here it appears that the entire committee and the NRC were all satisfied with the mitigation put in place. It is a very far stretch to lay this result at State's doorstepthe vigorous objection of any of the security-minded agencies would likely have derailed the transaction, but none, evidently was forthcoming. I have no doubt that State favored the salebut that is likely the position it would take today under Secretary Rex Tillerson and was surely the position it would have taken under Secretaries Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and John Kerry. State has a strong institutional bias in favor of accommodating foreign investment in the United States. Here, it seems clear that the Pentagon and DHS did not object either.
The inherent bias of the process is to approve transactions, with mitigation if needed. Intervention and blocking are rare and require more than a single agency to be activated. Put another way, no single agency has a veto on the transactionthe transaction goes forward unless a substantial majority of CFIUS is motivated by grave concerns to block it. So the most accurate way to characterize this case is that State, along with all the other agencies, declined to recommend a presidential veto.
Uranium One's licenses are for mining and extraction, not for export. This makes the claim that we "gave away" 20% of America's uranium fairly hyperbolic. The expectation, in light of the NRC's assessment, would have been that the uranium mined would be marketed in America (with the profits going to Russia).
It is, however, true, that the mining rights to 20% of American uranium are now held by a Russian state agency. That is troubling (and had it been me, I would have tried to generate opposition to the sale). It isn't a "give away," but it is the case that Rusatom has de jure and de facto legal rights that can be exercised to limit production if it wishes to do so.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:42 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 378 of 5796 (845422)
12-15-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
12-15-2018 3:27 PM


It's not just Cohen, it's AMI/National Inquirer. But I don't necessarily believe them. There's definitely enough there for an indictment. And there are recordings.
The timing of McDougall's payoff is a matter of public record. August 6, 2016. Limbaugh is lying. Oodles of evidence posted tomorrow if you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:44 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 381 of 5796 (845426)
12-15-2018 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
12-15-2018 3:27 PM


"Except for the Russians themselves. "
quote:
Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October.
Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.
So far...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 441 of 5796 (846764)
01-11-2019 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by PaulK
01-11-2019 12:18 PM


Re: Making America Great and Good Again
And now forward-pedaling.
US-led coalition says Syria withdrawal has begun
quote:
CJTF-OIR has begun the process of our deliberate withdrawal from Syria, spokesman Colonel Sean Ryan told AFP in a statement, referring to the US-led anti-jihadist force.
Out of concern for operational security, we will not discuss specific timelines, locations or troops movements, he said..
They have to make it absolutely clear to the entire world that US "commitments" are meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2019 12:18 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Faith, posted 01-11-2019 2:17 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 453 of 5796 (846810)
01-11-2019 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Faith
01-11-2019 6:34 PM


Re: More Fake News from Fox
Isn't that just precious! You think a passive wall will stop them indefinitely! Bless your heart!
Homeland Security disagrees. All eight border wall prototypes fail basic penetrability test:
quote:
For its part, the DHS has argued that no wall is impenetrable and that by slowing migrants trying to breach it, Border Patrol agents are given time to respond. DHS spokeswoman Katie Waldman told NBC that the prototypes were only meant to inform the final design moving forward.
You should (but won't) reflect on that headline and the wide assortment of heavy-industry-strength cutting, boring, bending, and burning tools available in Mexico. Don't forget explosives.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 01-11-2019 6:34 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by dwise1, posted 01-12-2019 1:16 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 464 of 5796 (846865)
01-12-2019 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Faith
01-12-2019 4:19 PM


Re: Drones are not enough
Post those polls.
Nobody other than Trump and loonies want or ever wanted the wall he's pushing. Others have suggested and voted for various limited-scale barriers placed where they actually can be effective. Those barriers are in place.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Faith, posted 01-12-2019 4:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Faith, posted 01-12-2019 4:34 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 466 of 5796 (846869)
01-12-2019 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by Faith
01-12-2019 4:34 PM


Re: Drones are not enough
Post those polls.
quote:
The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico.
The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.
At the time the act was being considered, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were all members of the Senate. (Schumer of New York is now the Senate minority leader.)
Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.
Originally, the act called on the Department of Homeland Security to install at least two layers of reinforced fencing along some stretches of the border. That was amended later, however, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, which got rid of the double-layer requirement.
Currently, 702 miles of fencing separates the United States from Mexico, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
...
Trump criticized the 2006 fence as too modest during the 2016 campaign
...
Democrats normally in favor of looser immigration laws saw the Secure Fence Act of 2006 as the lesser of two evils, according to a Boston Globe report that detailed the legislative process. Around that same time, the House passed legislation that would make any undocumented immigrant a felon.
"It didn’t have anywhere near the gravity of harm," Angela Kelley, who in 2006 was the legislative director for the National Immigration Forum, told the Boston Globe. "It was hard to vote against it because who is going to vote against a secure fence? And it was benign compared with what was out there."
quote:
Although the 2006 law authorized construction of a fence, Congress initially did not fully appropriate funds for it (see authorization-appropriation process). "Congress put aside $1.4 billion for the fence, but the whole cost, including maintenance, was pegged at $50 billion over 25 years, according to analyses at the time."[10]
A 2017 GAO report noted: "According to CBP, from fiscal year 2007 through 2015, it spent approximately $2.3 billion to deploy border fencing along the southwest border, and CBP will need to spend a substantial amount to sustain these investments over their lifetimes. CBP did not provide a current life-cycle costs estimate to maintain pedestrian and vehicle fencing, however, in 2009 CBP estimated that maintaining fencing would cost more than $1 billion over 20 years."[12]
So, you posted deceptive half-truths and outright lies.
Post those polls.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Faith, posted 01-12-2019 4:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 468 of 5796 (846873)
01-12-2019 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by dwise1
01-12-2019 6:49 PM


Re: Drones are not enough
Or slightly leading quesstions:
"Are you in favor of building a wall to stop illegal gang member immigrants from raping your daughter and slicing your mother's throat in front of you?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by dwise1, posted 01-12-2019 6:49 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 471 of 5796 (846892)
01-13-2019 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by Faith
01-13-2019 7:32 AM


Re: Drones are not enough
Thanks for admitting you lied about the polls showing the American people want the wall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Faith, posted 01-13-2019 7:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 472 of 5796 (846893)
01-13-2019 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Faith
01-13-2019 7:59 AM


Re: The Obama House Wall
Trump said a "ten foot wall". That isn't ten feet. Nor is it in any way comparable to Trump's wall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Faith, posted 01-13-2019 7:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024