Page 29 of 30 FirstFirst ... 2021222324252627282930 LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 448

Thread: Director Comey fired

  1. #421
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,002
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Slightly off subject, but this seems to be the place where the greatest number of Trumpets gather.

    When do the so-called Christians break with The Trumpet over his treatment of children?
    When does common decency and simple Christian morality kick in and force these holier-than-thou types to take a stand?
    Can anyone support this abomination and still pretend to believe in the teachings of Jesus?
    Are they being denied shelter, food, medical care, education, vaccination, leisure activity? Were families separated at the border before Trump? Are citizen families separated for misdemeanor crimes committed away from the border? Should we just ignore the fact that we don't know if the kids and adults are actually related and give them a free pass? Obama tried that one and kids got trafficked. Finally, if an American family subjected their kids to the same types of dangers as exist in getting here, would we give the parents a pass or arrest them for child endangerment and strip them of their kids? Its a made up scandal and the appeals to Christian virtue by people who support the slaughter of the unborn is wholly political and not base don any real moral convictions.

  2. #422
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,154
    Others have been kept in cages before and if you doubt that these small people arrived with their family I suggest you listen to them crying for their Maters/Paters/Uncles or what have you.

    The abortion issue is a false equivalency. When a child is not yet born you have to balance it's rights with those of it's Mater. Personally I could not consider aborting a child but then I have never been raped by anyone - let alone a member of my family or whatever. I do not consider that I have the right to tell a Lady who is a victim of such abuse what to do with a child she is carrying from such circumstances; I cannot know how she feels.

    These children that were separated are born and their rights are their own - only the duty of care remains with the parents. If you tried to take my daughter from me you should watch your back for the rest of your days. We have refugees from Donbass and Crimea in Ukraine (about 2million of them) but would never dream of separating the children from their families. God forbid but it is hypothetically possible that my family could be refugees (again, the last time being 1939). Would it be wrong for us to illegally enter Poland or Romania so that my daughter is not subjected to war? So that I am not shot? The US is a signatory of the 1951 UN Convention (modified by the 1967 Protocol) and has a duty (some, such as India are not) and therefore has a legal duty to people who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

    Likewise to asylum seekers until their claims are evaluated to whom all are obliged to allow entry. The difference being the two being that a 'refugee' has a more or less prima facie case; if there was a war in Mexico for instance, whereas an 'asylum seeker' has to have their claims verified. By Articles 12-30 of the Refugee Convention they also have rights (see http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/stud...efugees.htm#ii) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/k2crc.htm where Article 2.2 says "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members." No matter what 'crime' (if any) the parents may have committed when crossing a border the 'Rights of the Child' are NOT effected.

    Trumpkin is breaking the law but hey nothing new there...

  3. #423
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,998
    Yes.
    Yes.
    Yes.
    Yes.
    Irrelevant.


    My turn.

    When did you lose your moral compass?
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  4. #424
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,705
    DOR, diagnosing hearts and minds for how many years?

    How about that Comey keeping a murderer on the street to work him as an informant? What a moral compass!
    Last edited by surfgun; 05 Jul 18, at 12:10.

  5. #425
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Others have been kept in cages before and if you doubt that these small people arrived with their family I suggest you listen to them crying for their Maters/Paters/Uncles or what have you.

    The abortion issue is a false equivalency. When a child is not yet born you have to balance it's rights with those of it's Mater. Personally I could not consider aborting a child but then I have never been raped by anyone - let alone a member of my family or whatever. I do not consider that I have the right to tell a Lady who is a victim of such abuse what to do with a child she is carrying from such circumstances; I cannot know how she feels.

    These children that were separated are born and their rights are their own - only the duty of care remains with the parents. If you tried to take my daughter from me you should watch your back for the rest of your days. We have refugees from Donbass and Crimea in Ukraine (about 2million of them) but would never dream of separating the children from their families. God forbid but it is hypothetically possible that my family could be refugees (again, the last time being 1939). Would it be wrong for us to illegally enter Poland or Romania so that my daughter is not subjected to war? So that I am not shot? The US is a signatory of the 1951 UN Convention (modified by the 1967 Protocol) and has a duty (some, such as India are not) and therefore has a legal duty to people who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

    Likewise to asylum seekers until their claims are evaluated to whom all are obliged to allow entry. The difference being the two being that a 'refugee' has a more or less prima facie case; if there was a war in Mexico for instance, whereas an 'asylum seeker' has to have their claims verified. By Articles 12-30 of the Refugee Convention they also have rights (see http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/stud...efugees.htm#ii) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/k2crc.htm where Article 2.2 says "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members." No matter what 'crime' (if any) the parents may have committed when crossing a border the 'Rights of the Child' are NOT effected.

    Trumpkin is breaking the law but hey nothing new there...
    I'm not sure if it's illegal for you to enter Poland, but it's illegal for you to enter the US without going through a port of entry. Either way, this isn't a case of you going into Poland, you're entering Poland, deciding it's not good enough for you, and continuing on to Germany instead. There's an entire nation between the US and Central America, and while it's not exactly heaven on Earth, the US spent much of the 20th century significantly poorer than modern-day Mexico.

    Abusing the rights of asylum and rights of refugees to achieve economic migration isn't exactly kosher.
    Last edited by GVChamp; 05 Jul 18, at 15:18.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  6. #426
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,998
    Quote Originally Posted by surfgun View Post
    DOR, diagnosing hearts and minds for how many years?

    How about that Comey keeping a murderer on the street to work him as an informant? What a moral compass!
    Changing the subject when you can't win is childish.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  7. #427
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,705
    Being a judgmental prick, is bit more juvenile. The mods should of reeled you in long ago.

  8. #428
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,154
    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    I'm not sure if it's illegal for you to enter Poland, but it's illegal for you to enter the US without going through a port of entry.
    My point is that if I was in fear for my life it would not be 'illegal' for me to enter Poland (or Romania which is actually closer to my home) by whatever means - 'legal port of entry' or not. In fact my Grandfather did basically that and crossed the Carpathians into what was then Hungary in 1939. He made it to France and fought there and then went through Spain to Portugal where he caught a boat to England and fought again. If he had stayed he would have probably ended at Katyn, as his Pater did.


    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    Either way, this isn't a case of you going into Poland, you're entering Poland, deciding it's not good enough for you, and continuing on to Germany instead.
    Personally I have no desire to go to Germany as I am 'ethnically' which means just about nothing other than by religion and the way I spell my sirname, Polish. If Poland continued to fight I would fight there and if we lost there wherever else that continues - even Chechnya or Dagestan.

    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    Abusing the rights of asylum and rights of refugees to achieve economic migration isn't exactly kosher.
    You cannot know that immediately is the point. Until that is determined (or not) the 'Rights of the Child' apply.

  9. #429
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,002
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Yes.
    Yes.
    Yes.
    Yes.
    Irrelevant.
    Not irrelevant. No one who supports the slaughter of a million human beings a year has a moral compass. Let alone any grasp on Christianity given that John the Baptist lept in the womb when his mother stood next to a pregnant Mary.


    My turn.

    When did you lose your moral compass?
    My moral compass is just fine. The kids are not being mistreated despite our government's first job being the citizenry, not the invader.

  10. #430
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,824
    ok...back to OP (sort of).

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/06/polit...lic/index.html

    Prosecutors for special counsel Robert Mueller intend to present evidence at the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort that a banking executive allegedly helped Manafort obtain loans of approximately $16 million while the banker sought a role in the Trump campaign.

    Manafort faces trial on bank fraud and other financial charges in the Eastern District of Virginia beginning July 25. Until now, there had been no indication that his role in the Trump campaign would become part of the trial, and he had asked the judge to keep details about his ties to President Donald Trump out of the trial. Prosecutors say any alleged collusion with the Russian government won't come up at the trial.

    The allegation of a possible quid pro quo came amid several court filings Friday as both sides count down the remaining weeks until the trial. While prosecutors filled in the Trump campaign details, Manafort's team was busy filing requests with the judge to move his trial location and date, to look into possible leaks from the prosecutors and to keep Manafort out of the public eye.

    "The government intends to present evidence that although various Lender D employees identified serious issues with the defendant's loan application, the senior executive at Lender D interceded in the process and approved the loan," according to the filing from Mueller's team.
    The bank executive "expressed interest in working on the Trump campaign, told (Manafort) about his interest, and eventually secured a position advising the Trump campaign," the filing said. The unnamed man "expressed an interest in serving in the administration of President Trump, but did not secure such a position."

    While the senior executive is unnamed in this filing, in a previous court filing prosecutors identified Lender D as The Federal Savings Bank.
    "Here, it would be difficult for the jury to understand why the loans were approved without understanding that the lender approved the loans, in spite of the identified deficiencies, because the senior executive factored in his own personal ambition," prosecutors wrote in the filing.

    Manafort's team asks to move location, date of trial

    Manafort's team wants to move the financial crimes trial from Alexandria to Roanoke, Virginia, and push its start date back to the fall or later, they said in other filings Friday.
    The lawyers claim it would be impossible for their client to have a fair trial in a place like Washington, where partisan politics are strong and the public closely follows national media and political news. Roanoke is in the southwestern part of the state about four hours from DC.
    It "is difficult to conceive of a matter that has received media attention of the same magnitude as the prosecution of Mr. Manafort," his lawyers wrote. "Mr. Manafort's legal issues and the attendant daily media coverage have become theatre in the continuing controversy surrounding President Trump and his election."

    They point out specific instances where Manafort has faced "intensely negative news coverage," especially in the past month. After a judge in DC revoked his bail three weeks ago, even Trump tweeted that Manafort got a " 'tough sentence' -- incorrectly suggesting that Mr Manafort had been sentenced for committing a crime," Manafort's lawyers wrote.

    They describe how the Alexandria area had voted 2-to-1 in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, while the Roanoke region's votes were more evenly split.
    "It is not a stretch to expect that voters who supported Secretary Clinton would be predisposed against Mr. Manafort or that voters who supported President Trump would be less inclined toward the Special Counsel," Manafort's attorneys wrote.
    They also claimed separately that investigators including Andrew Weissmann, who now leads the trial team at the Special Counsel's Office, had guided Associated Press journalists in their reporting on Manafort in 2017. If the judge finds that there indeed were illegal leaks, the investigators could be sanctioned.

    Trial time and date

    As for the start date, Manafort's attorneys say they've had difficulty preparing for trial since their client was sent to jail June 15 by a DC federal judge for alleged witness tampering. So they'd like for the Virginia trial to move to after his DC criminal trial, which is set to start September 17.

    The DC trial, which will focus on foreign lobbying allegations, will take weeks longer than the Virginia proceeding, which is likely to rely largely on financial-document evidence.
    "Time is needed to allow passions to cool and to permit the seating of an impartial jury," Manafort's attorneys wrote to Judge T.S. Ellis.
    The inconvenience of jail also plays into their request. Manafort is being held in solitary confinement 23 hours a day in Warsaw, Virginia, about 100 miles from DC.
    Before, when he was on house arrest in Alexandria, Manafort would spend hours at a time, multiple times a week, in his lawyers' offices discussing evidence. Now he's two hours away by car and can speak with them on the phone for only 10 minutes at a time, his lawyers said. Plus, prosecutors are still turning over evidence that Manafort may use to prepare his defense, including electronic data from his longtime deputy Rick Gates, who pleaded guilty in DC federal court and agreed to assist prosecutors.
    "Mr. Manafort's current detention has made meetings with his attorneys to prepare his defense far more infrequent and enormously time-consuming compared to when he remained on house arrest," the filing said.
    Jail situation
    Manafort's attorneys have complained to several courts and for several reasons now about him being held in jail.
    For instance, Manafort waived his right to appear in court for any upcoming hearings in the Eastern District of Virginia, his attorneys wrote in a filing Friday.
    No other hearings are currently scheduled before the district court until his trial starts. Ellis made clear last week that Manafort's team wouldn't get a hearing on government leak accusations they've made before the trial, although it's possible a pretrial conference could be added to the schedule.

    Manafort would appear in person at his trial and possible sentencing, the filing said. Manafort has been held in Northern Neck Regional Jail, about two hours from DC in rural Virginia, and has not been seen publicly since June 15. He also did not come to a hearing in the case last Friday.

    His reason for not appearing has been "the great time and distance involved in having the US Marshals Service transport him to court from the Northern Neck Regional Jail. Appearing in court requires him to spend at least two hours in transit in each direction," his attorneys wrote Friday.

    Manafort would likely wear a jail-issued jumpsuit in hearings before the judge, as is standard in federal court. Only when he appears before a jury at trial would he have the opportunity to revert to the business suits he previously wore to court.

    Manafort court hearing dominated by leak accusations, FBI search questions and whether trial will move

    His attorneys have not asked for the same blanket waiver of appearance in his DC criminal case, which has two hearings scheduled between now and his September trial date.

    But they are appealing Judge Amy Berman Jackson's decision to send him to jail. He's seeking to be let out before his trial, his attorneys have told the appeals court in DC.
    Manafort's attorneys say he's in solitary confinement for "at least" 23 hours a day because "the facility cannot otherwise guarantee his safety," according to a court filing Thursday.
    They imply Manafort's safety might be at risk if he were held with other inmates.

    "The facility and U.S. Marshals have acted with professionalism and respect in their efforts to ensure Mr. Manafort's safety. They have simply determined that, if Mr. Manafort is to be detained, solitary confinement is the only way to ensure his security," Manafort's lawyers wrote Thursday.

    They argue that Berman Jackson was wrong to revoke his bail for alleged witness tampering.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  11. #431
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,705
    An article about some of the 2016 spying on the Trump campaign.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/02...4kN9I.facebook

  12. #432
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,461
    Quote Originally Posted by surfgun View Post
    An article about some of the 2016 spying on the Trump campaign.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/02...4kN9I.facebook
    So let's see...Donald Trump, The Trump Organization, The Trump Campaign and The Trump Family are in balls deep with Russians, the Russian government, Russian intelligence agents...and Donald Trump is running for President of the United States.

    If I was the FBI, I probably would've ignored the whole thing as well.

    Oh wait...
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  13. #433
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,705
    Perhaps, the former FBI Special Agent, G. Gordon Liddy was investigating suspected connections of the Soviet Union to the McGovern Campaign? Democrats such as Ted Kennedy were known to network with Soviets.

  14. #434
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,461
    Quote Originally Posted by surfgun View Post
    Perhaps, the former FBI Special Agent, G. Gordon Liddy was investigating suspected connections of the Soviet Union to the McGovern Campaign? Democrats such as Ted Kennedy were known to network with Soviets.
    Former FBI agent renders that comparison vis-a-vis the current situation null and void, so nice try there. And Democrats networking with the Soviets should've been (was?) investigated or monitored just as much as Trump. Or were you expecting me to defend Teddy and his networking?

    To be clear, I don't have the slightest problem with Barr investigating the FBI over this. Mainly because all that's going to come out of it is 1) The FBI did their job and 2) Even more Trump-Russia connections will probably come boiling out of the cauldron.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  15. #435
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,154
    I have a problem with Barr doing anything.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. James Comey Nominated To Be New FBI Director
    By Doktor in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22 Jun 13,, 12:19
  2. Former Goldman Sachs Director, Sentenced To Two Years
    By USSWisconsin in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 25 Oct 12,, 04:47
  3. A Chat With ISAF's Director Of Intelligence
    By S2 in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Nov 09,, 15:57
  4. Dennis Ross appointed NSC senior director
    By Ironduke in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26 Jun 09,, 16:56
  5. CIA Director cites big gains against al-Qaida globally
    By citanon in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 16 Jun 08,, 19:38

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •