Usa Thread

[Steve]

This case has some underlying questions that the media hasn't talked about. I heard an expert trial lawyer say something that was very interesting. He said we all have walked into the wrong room. Usually while we are distracted. If you are in a building where its cookie cutter apartments, its common to walk into an unlocked room that isn't yours. I did that my first week in college. The dorms were not locked usually and I walked into the wrong dorm room with my schedule in hand, distracted. The human reaction to walking into a room and there is something that is out of place be it a person or furniture or both is you are in the wrong place. You don't assume the furniture and person/persons are in your place. 

Secondly, if you go to the wrong room and its locked, and your key doesn't work you automatically look at the apartment number to see if you have the wrong place. Your first instinct is you are wrong. That is something completely relatable that everyone identifies with and this expert wondered why the prosecutor didn't point this out to the jurors because its something they all have experienced. 

Now, in this specific case the door was locked and there was a red welcome mat outside. She was distracted by her testimony on texts when she came to the door. She tried her key and it didn't work. Normal human reaction is to look focus on the place and see if the apartment number is right and seeing the red mat all people would immediately know its not their apartment. But her testimony is that she banged on the door. She banged on a door where her key did not work. She heard a person inside the apartment. Any person, cop or whomever, thinks he or she is at her home and its locked and someone is inside, is immediately calling police. She is a cop. In the very unlikely situation where she still thinks its her apartment at this point, door locked, apartment number not the same, red welcome mat outside and hears someone inside. She is banging on the door for the person to open it. Now, common sense dictates this must be an intruder. Cop or no, you automatically think does the person have a gun? Is it more than one person? Why is she banging on the door for the "instruder" to open it without calling the police. If she was distracted and went to the wrong apartment, why isn't she lucid enough to know its not the wrong person and acting in a manner that is not consistent with coming home and finding an intruder in your place and its locked? 

So, if her version of events is bullshit and any logical and reasonable person would think so, the question begs. Why did she knowingly murder this man? What reason(s) can make a cop arbitrarily kill this person?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49899264

[Coss]

"Why did she knowingly murder this man?"

My take on this, will draw the ire of some, but, whilst I don't know any female cop murderers, I do know and have known, quite a few female nutters.

So, my response is, that female nuttery is much more common, than one thinks and it is not a genderless affliction, some female specific nuttery is real and powerful. As in, one girlfriend, two acquaintances and two family members, ...the nuttery is strong in this one....

[Coss]

Trumpanzees - whistleblower rules changed before Ukraine complaint -
Fact check: Were whistleblower rules changed before Ukraine complaint? "The law was not changed. What happened was a form was changed. A form cannot change the law," one attorney said. (NBC News)

Faaaark!
Both William Barr and Mike Pompeo personally participated in contacts between Trump and the leaders of at least four foreign leaders. The goal those contacts was to produce stories that could damage Joe Biden or undermine the U.S. intelligence community's 2017 assessment that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. (The Guardian / Reuters / Business Insider)

Faaaark! Faaaark!
Lawyers for the House of Representatives believe the grand jury redactions in the Mueller report show Trump lied about his knowledge of his campaign's contacts with WikiLeaks. The attorneys made the suggestion in a court filing as part of the Judiciary Committee's attempts to obtain the grand jury materials, which remain secret by law. The filing says the materials not only reveal Trump's motives for obstructing Mueller's probe, but "they also could reveal that Trump was aware of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks." To back up their claims, the legal team cited a passage in Mueller’s report about Paul Manafort’s testimony where he "recalled" Trump asking to be kept "updated" about WikiLeaks’ disclosures of DNC emails. (Politico)

[Coss]

Next Trumpanzee scream - no firsthand knowledge of conversation by whistleblower.

So up to 12 people see crime, 12 people tell me this, I whistleblow.  Does not make me a spy, a savage, a fraud, a fake, a partisan, or incorrect.

---

"Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called 'Whistleblower,' represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way," Trump said on Twitter over the weekend.

Yes, in Court.

But if it's perfect, why scream and rant and panic?

 

[Coss]

Digging himself in deeper, Trump warned Monday he was trying to find out the name of the official who blew the whistle on his call and dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump's comment could be a potential violation of laws meant to protect truth tellers and could play into any eventual charges by Democrats that he is seeking to obstruct their investigation.

The whistleblower's lawyers have already raised concern for their client's safety, as Democrats try to persuade the unnamed official to tell the story that sparked their complaint on Capitol Hill.

 

yer think?

[Coss]

Just saw Rudy Giuliani claiming to be the Lawyer of the President of the United States- he's not, he's Trump's personal private lawyer.    ooohhhh dear....

 

 

[Steve]

58 minutes ago, Coss said:

"Why did she knowingly murder this man?"

My take on this, will draw the ire of some, but, whilst I don't know any female cop murderers, I do know and have known, quite a few female nutters.

So, my response is, that female nuttery is much more common, than one thinks and it is not a genderless affliction, some female specific nuttery is real and powerful. As in, one girlfriend, two acquaintances and two family members, ...the nuttery is strong in this one....

This is a male forum, so I doubt you get many "me too"ers accusing you of male toxicity. Can it be that simple? The big police departments in America screen for nut cases. I have friends in the police force. Smaller police departments look for experience. Suburban police departments regularly higher city cops because its cheaper. They are already trained and have experience and bring in knowledge you won't find in a small town. Dallas will give you various psychological tests. They know there are people, primarily men who want to join for the wrong reasons. There are some people who want to be in the worst part of the city so they can kill the bad guys. They do a fairly decent job of screening. Often its the job itself that turns decent, good minded cops into cynical, abusers. 

This smells of something different. I am a huge fan of crime mystery movies and TV shows so the Sherlock Holmes in me says there is something else and that something else may lead to some other crime or something that needs to be looked at closer. 

[Steve]

Coss, you are right. The Presidents all have personal attorneys but these personal attorneys make an effort NOT to get involved in the business of the government. They are almost always usually charged with making sure the President is not personally in violation of laws that can get him charged personally. The impeachment process is a political one so the chief of staff,  the White House attorney (different role than personal attorney, he is the one that makes sure the President is not doing impeachable acts), attorney general, etc, are the ones that would be closest to that kind of event as it was with Nixon and Clinton. The Chief of Staff especially would be involved in pretty much any correspondence and phone call as a conduit, or whatever. He (or she although I don't think we have had one yet, unless you count Nancy Reagan's un-official role as such after he was shot and when he was losing his memory). 

What may have sealed Trump's fate is his pension for not following protocol or listening to those who advise him not to. He goes off the cuff. That is obvious. He's known not to adhere to advice and go off instinct or at times have no filter. That's known. That style may have just got him impeached. It's not a stretch to think that Trump really didn't know it was illegal to ask that of the Ukrainians and either didn't listen to or his circle was too scared to tell him. Totally believable from what we know about his style. 

So, in Trump's defense I can see him getting impeached over something he really didn't know was wrong. Although ignorance of the law is no defense. 

[Steve]

A progessive site, but interesting nonetheless

 

 

[Coss]

1 hour ago, chocolat steve said:

Can it be that simple? The big police departments in America screen for nut cases.

Yes but you are not allowed to screen for Female Specific Nuttery, that is discrimination. In fact the only recognition Society allows for FSN is to turn on your heel and walk away, run, if in danger...

For an example https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Bronx-Zoo-Lion-561880561.html

 

1 hour ago, chocolat steve said:

A progessive site, but interesting nonetheless

Screwed, they are.

I saw Pompeo deflecting on what he new about the call (which it transpires, he was listening to and aiding Trump with), and whilst he denied knowing anything, there was fear in his eyes.