|
So the constitutional threshold question is that Trump is being investigated for something the DOJ told him to do, but also there is no investigation. If you look at it from the perspective of whether the DOJ is wrong, they're breaking the law by investigating him. However Trump is not under investigation.quote:SEKULOW: ...So here's the constitutional threshold question, Chris. The president takes action based on numerous events, including recommendations from his attorney general and the deputy attorney general’s office. He takes the action that they also, by the way, recommended. And now he's being investigated by the Department of Justice because the special counsel under the special counsel relations reports still to the Department of Justice. Not an independent counsel. So he's being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination. So that's the constitutional threshold question here. That’s why, as I said, no investigation --
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:52 |
|
Groovelord Neato posted:oh i know i just mean how do they do it. The biggest differences I'm aware of are sampling method and population slicing. Rasmussen only uses robocalls to landlines, so their sample skews much older. I don't believe they correct for this. I've heard there are question framing issues as well (though this is unlikely to be use in their large-scale political surveys). The big one is probably the secret sauce of all political polling- the correction method they use for "likely voter" resampling.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Being happy that bad things happen to bad people is just catharsis combined with the fact that if you withhold justice from someone for long enough they'll start to accept vengeance in its place. That's just how people are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Oof, I don't know about that. If you have to dehumanize someone first then you should probably stop what you're doing. If nothing else you're exercising muscles that you're really better off leaving alone. You got me you wonderful bastard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Louisiana state law. Federal law pretty much never jails people for marijuana unless they're a large scale dealer or there are aggravating violent crimes involved. This has been true for years and years. The problem of nonviolent drug offenders being in prison is 100% a state law issue, primarily driven by elected prosecutor and judge positions. Also, by the cultural backwardness of Eastern states. I mean, we can talk about the private prison industry and all that, but it rests on a cultural bedrock of fear of what is different, and a lot of that has to do with the Eastern mindset.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:So the constitutional threshold question is that Trump is being investigated for something the DOJ told him to do, but also there is no investigation. If you look at it from the perspective of whether the DOJ is wrong, they're breaking the law by investigating him. However Trump is not under investigation. So is he saying the top law enforcement agency in the country is wrong - committing a crime, in fact - for pursuing justice because there is some chance that Trump is innocent? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Is there any country where 50% is even a passing grade, let alone a good one? I always found it weird that 50% isn't a passing grade in the US. In Canada, at least, 50% is a pass, a fail is 49% and below. It is still an absolutely awful grade, but it is nonetheless a pass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:So is he saying the top law enforcement agency in the country is wrong for pursuing justice because there is some chance that Trump is innocent? No he's saying Rosenstein recommending he fire Comey is his get out of jail free card because since he was told to fire Comey, he is all clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:No he's saying Rosenstein recommending he fire Comey is his get out of jail free card because he was told to do it. Didn't he ask Rosenstein to write up that reasoning, after deciding to fire Comey? Doesn't it not matter at all regardless because Trump fired Comey to impede the Russia investigation, making it obstruction of justice that he did so even if god himself rode in on a cloud announcing it to be the correct course of action?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Can't you get in trouble for lying this much as a lawyer? We had a discussion about it the other day. Lawyers can't make knowingly false declarative statements like that and he said the President is under investigation, he's not under investigation, and now he doesn't know that he's under investigation. How hard is it to say "We have no information or comment on ongoing investigations, if such an investigation does exist, it will quickly find my client did not engage in any illegal behavior?" Like Lying is both more difficult and less productive than Shutting Up, isn't that one of the basic things lawyers learn?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:Didn't he ask Rosenstein to write up that reasoning, after deciding to fire Comey? Doesn't it not matter at all regardless because Trump fired Comey to impede the Russia investigation, making it obstruction of justice that he did so even if god himself rode in on a cloud announcing it to be the correct course of action? trump's lawyer is, apparently, operating on the premise that trump's tweets, recorded statements, etc don't exist
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:Didn't he ask Rosenstein to write up that reasoning, after deciding to fire Comey? Doesn't it not matter at all regardless because Trump fired Comey to impede the Russia investigation, making it obstruction of justice that he did so even if god himself rode in on a cloud announcing it to be the correct course of action? He did and Rosenstein testified that he was asked to write it, so you're right. If you admit to multiple people "I fired that N-word because he's black" after you got your assistant manager to write a bad performance evaluation of the guy, you're gonna get sued and lose. Even in an at-will state. Trump admitted in a loving interview he did it because of the Russia investigation. That's why it's maddening he's still President.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Can't you get in trouble for lying this much as a lawyer? We had a discussion about it the other day. Lawyers can't make knowingly false declarative statements like that and he said the President is under investigation, he's not under investigation, and now he doesn't know that he's under investigation. We know from looking at Sekulow's past work that he's a complete loving hack, exactly the sort of person that the Trump administration attracts, and just about the only people who will work for Trump at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:trump's lawyer is, apparently, operating on the premise that trump's tweets, recorded statements, etc don't exist It would be interesting to see what a lawyer who wasn't a glorified Lionel Hutz would come up with to explain Twitter. I imagine that somewhere there is a legal precedent that speech that is done by reflex does not count as a meaningful speech. (Someone spills hot coffee on you and you yell "I'll kill you" doesn't count as a threat, since you didn't have time to contemplate and plan your speech. Twitter is not declarative statements, but is just shows the process of thought. But none of Trump's lawyers are smart enough to make that case, and Trump wouldn't stand for it, so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:It would be interesting to see what a lawyer who wasn't a glorified Lionel Hutz would come up with to explain Twitter. Well in the Muslim ban court case his tweets were cited by the court as official statements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:It would be interesting to see what a lawyer who wasn't a glorified Lionel Hutz would come up with to explain Twitter. actually that sort of reflexive speech is given somewhat more weight, as it can be entered into evidence even though its hearsay (present sense impressions, excited utterance, and/or then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Oh, I see your problem. Just because someone is a horrible person, that doesn't make them non-human. You sound like a Nazi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Doesn't Rasmussen's methods include calling landlines and not cell phones? In other words, it's only going to reach people who are older, and likely to swing conservative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
They found the bodies of the missing sailors  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/18/navy-halts-search-missing-sailors-after-bodies-found/102988642/
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Is there anything/enough in the gibberish of trump admitting that he fired comey in the lester holt interview to obfuscate and argue that he wasn't saying what everyone heard him say?trump the moron to lester holt posted:HOLT: Monday you met with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. etc https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/11/president_trumps_full_interview_with_lester_holt.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Doesn't Rasmussen's methods include calling landlines and not cell phones? In other words, it's only going to reach people who are older, and likely to swing conservative. Don't old people need cell phones arguably *more* than young people? How old and curmudgeonly does one have to be to refuse to have a cell phone in TYOOL 2017? skylined! posted:Is there anything/enough in the gibberish of trump admitting that he fired comey in the lester holt interview to obfuscate and argue that he wasn't saying what everyone heard him say? He very very clearly stated that he had already made the decision to fire him before he asked for the reasoning to be written up and then proceeded to state clearly that he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he made that decision, which again was before the reasoning was written up. The best that they could do out of this is to say that he wasn't firing him to obstruct justice but to end an investigation he considered to be nonsense and a waste of time, which I guess they'd argue wasn't an attempt to obstruct justice because he truly believed nothing illegal had happened. that won't fly of course but I bet that's the argument that gets used. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Oof, I don't know about that. If you have to dehumanize someone first then you should probably stop what you're doing. If nothing else you're exercising muscles that you're really better off leaving alone. Go hug yourself to death, hippie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If everyone waited on taking any action, until what they got balanced perfectly with what they deserve, nothing would ever get done. And who are you to decide who goes first?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:Just because someone is a horrible person, that doesn't make them non-human. You sound like a Nazi. Why? The nazis didn't do it to horrible people, they did it to innocent people based on their race, religion or mental health status. How is that not a key differentiator?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
hanales posted:They found the bodies of the missing sailors It's...better than them being lost to the sea. This whole thing is awful and should have never happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:Don't old people need cell phones arguably *more* than young people? How old and curmudgeonly does one have to be to refuse to have a cell phone in TYOOL 2017? It would be more likely that they have both. Whereas younger generations never got a landline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:And who are you to decide who goes first?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Dehumanizing people because of their beliefs is only cool if that belief is political. Dehumanizing someone because of their cultural beliefs makes you the kind of monster we should dehumanize.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Why? The nazis didn't do it to horrible people, they did it to innocent people based on their race, religion or mental health status. How is that not a key differentiator?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I didn't decide. James Hodgkinson did. Dude's got more balls than I'll probably ever have so I'm not going to second guess him. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Dogwood Fleet posted:It's...better than them being lost to the sea. This whole thing is awful and should have never happened. Yeah the families get closure and can bury them at least. Long history of scammers taking advantage of the families of mia soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Why? The nazis didn't do it to horrible people, they did it to innocent people based on their race, religion or mental health status. How is that not a key differentiator? The Nazis did it to all sorts of people, good and monstrous. Is it fine that they happened to kill and torture some of the people you'd be willing to label monstrous based on your own values? Making the argument that the Nazis were bad simply because they did it to people that you didn't happen to hate is really lovely. Their methods were just as atrocious as their choice of target.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I didn't decide. James Hodgkinson did. Dude's got more balls than I'll probably ever have so I'm not going to second guess him. Kilroy posted:Most of the Republicans in Congress and not a few of the Democrats deserve death 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It doesn't differentiate them from other humans. The Nazis were humans. That doesn't mean killing them was wrong. Key differentiator in the act itself you twit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:The Nazis did it to all sorts of people, good and monstrous. Is it fine that they happened to kill and torture some of the people you'd be willing to label monstrous based on your own values? No because intentionality is important. However, if a nazi managed to unintentionally kill a horrible person I would not complain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Here let me quote Your Boy Fancy again:Your Boy Fancy posted:And who are you to decide who goes first?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Here let me quote Your Boy Fancy again: it's not a discussion if all you're doing is asking other people to explain your own words to you
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Starmaker posted:I always found it weird that 50% isn't a passing grade in the US. In Canada, at least, 50% is a pass, a fail is 49% and below. It is still an absolutely awful grade, but it is nonetheless a pass. As with so many things, I blame the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:No because intentionality is important. However, if a nazi managed to unintentionally kill a horrible person I would not complain. My point is that the intention is still as hosed up as the action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
skylined! posted:Is there anything/enough in the gibberish of trump admitting that he fired comey in the lester holt interview to obfuscate and argue that he wasn't saying what everyone heard him say? He never says that he did it BECAUSE of the Russia thing, just that he was thinking it at the same time!  Correlation is not causation, libtards!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 21:21
|
|