Jump to content
Alohameansgoodbye

Usa Thread

Recommended Posts

1730493899_ScreenShot2019-11-15at3_41_34PM.png.e70f9eb1ab5fb3de362e181d0842a598.png

 

 

sooo....    the whistleblower is fake, ergo he doesn't exist, why does Trump want to know where this non existent person is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the Republican defence of Trump on these corruption and quid pro quo matters, is so weak, is they are busy keeping the big one quiet, treason.

Giving aid and comfort to an enemy, Russia...

 

Cav, the whistle blower that you think you outed, by your own graphic, doesn't work for the Whitehouse, the real one does. Could be Melanie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no way that Bill Clinton wasn't guilty of what he was charged, but the Dems in the Senate voted en masse to acquit him. Very different situations agreed, but the voting broke down almost entirely by party lines, not guilt. Not one single Democrat voted to convict Stiff Willy, though a few Republicans voted not guilty.

Why should the Republicans be any different? Politicis is politics, and it's all about retaining or losing power. 

 

Meanwhile, I had never seen this before. Interesting:

The Lead-crime hypothesis

The lead–crime hypothesis is the proposed link between elevated blood lead levels in children and increased rates of crime, delinquency, and recidivism later in life.

Lead is widely understood to be highly toxic to multiple organs of the body, particularly the brain. Individuals exposed to lead at young ages may be more vulnerable to learning disabilities, decreased I.Q., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and problems with impulse control, all of which may be negatively impacting decision making and leading to the commission of more crimes as these children reach adulthood, especially violent crimes.

Proponents of the lead–crime hypothesis argue that the removal of lead additives from motor fuel, and the consequent decline in children's lead exposure, explains the fall in crime rates in the United States beginning in the 1990s. This hypothesis also offers an explanation of the earlier rise in crime in the preceding decades as the result of increased lead exposure throughout the mid-20th century.

...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis?wprov=sfla1&fbclid=IwAR2WHkHUlNqlrCWDOSxtj5_YltaQMW9JG0RXCJ9D6pz74n3j8tJu2quhNcc

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Coss said:

Flash - these are credible people, people with distinguished military careers and decades of unblemished  civil service.

 

So you'd rather believe Cav and the tin foil hat brigade, you are lost my friend

 

Hearsay is hearsay. Since when is it admissiable in a court of law, regard;less of who claims to have heard it?

" Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. These out-of-court statements do not have to be spoken words, but they can also constitute documents or even body language. The rule against hearsay was designed to prevent gossip from being offered to convict someone.

"Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies."

 

p.s. I'd once upon a time thought of becoming a lawyer until I came to my senses. Even so, I took plenty of pre-law courses and scored high enough that I could have gone to law school.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impeachment is not the biggest threat to Trump getting re-elected. The stigma of impeachment isn't enough. If he gets exonerated in the Senate it's still possible for him to get re-elected. It will make it very hard and it would depend a lot on what is unearthed. 

The biggest threat by far is the economy, specifically a crash happening before the election. If he wins and there is a crash late 2020 or in 2021, he will go down in history as the 2nd coming of Herbert Hoover. 

The next crash won't be pretty. It will rival the great depression in size and scope. That sounds alarmist but there are factors in place that suggest it will dwarf 2008. If a Democrat wins, he can blame it on Trump if it happens within 6 months. If it happens longer out, it would be tougher. Obama could blame the economy on Bush and Republicans very easy. 

Anyway, if the economy crashes and most financiers, business leaders and economists are now openly talking about it happening some time in 2020 (my guess is October for historical reasons), before the election, the Democrats will sweep both houses. Similar to Obama's first 2 years. Trump will fight the 2nd Bush and Nixon for the worst president in modern history and he'll lose to Bush because Bush now seen as your kindly, sweet grand dad and he'll battle it out with Nixon. Younger people will put him above Nixon, those over 50 will put him below Nixon probably. 

I've said this on here and in the financial section. America is juggling a few different bubbles all at the same time and if they all pop at the same time, we may see a larger Greece where we are limited to a certain amount of money at the ATM for a few days or weeks till they get their hands around the problem. Trump is touting an unemployment rate he criticized Obama and the government over. He was right during the campaign when he said the unemployment numbers were rigged. So are his. The true unemployment number in America is not 3%. Millions have to take a 2nd job, Uber, part time work at a call center in the evenings, whatever they have to do because they can't afford a house and that has driven the millions who want to purchase a home and can't into the rental market so now there is an oversupply of tenants and landlords can drive up prices. Salaries have stagnated. I am currently staying at a friend's home in Los Angeles. It's a part of LA that was notorious when I l left America. It's not as bad due to gentrification several blocks away but I don't venture outside late at night either. If anyone is aware of the Nipsey Hussle rapper murder, I can walk there in 4-5 minutes. Slauson and Crenshaw for those who know LA. The rent he pays for a 1 bedroom apartment is $1,250 and he is older and that is subsidized. That same rent when I left in 2009 was $750 tops. So, the same worker in the same area has to come up with an extra $500 a month. His wages haven't gone up $500 a month. It's stagnant since that time. That worker has to get a roommate or a 2nd job or whatever he or she has to do. I have a cousin in LA who is living with his girlfriend and her child due to rental issues.  He or she may try moving to a lower rent area but as far as I know and I have asked, there isn't rent lower than that and if you are so lucky, you will have to drive through a lot of traffic to get to work on time. 

That 3% are all second jobs and under employment of the young. College grads have school loans and are taking anything they can to pay. They are working as clerks at Enterprise car rental, driving Uber, selling things on Poshmark  Etsy, and other eCommerce activities. They are still living at home but if they are in a city where they have no family they are living 2 or 3 to a flat. Renting a sofa is common now. A growing number of people who fell on hard times and have to take a low paying job are now living out of their car. They join a 24 hour health club for showers, drive Uber after their low paying job. 

The economy was bad under Obama. The reason why there were tens of thousands of people who voted for Obama twice and then voted for Trump in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, was out of desperation. Trump even got some black votes out of that. Obama did the best he could but the recovery wasn't a great recovery. A lot of it is not his fault. America has endemic economic issues that predated Obama's election.The Republicans made sure he couldn't pass anything that would help such as an infrastructure bill that Republicans support, because it would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs.  What he can be blamed for is not doing enough due to taking Wall Street, Hollywood and other types of money that kept the status quo to some extent. 

Hard care Trump supporters, the ones that would actually still vote for him if he shot someone are not motivated by the economy. It's a much deeper issue for them. They put stopping the demographic changes America is going through as paramount. Bigger than their wallet. They see an existential threat to them and their progeny. That is not new. The 'nativists' of the mid to late  1800s and early 1900s felt even stronger believe it or not. The 'latinos' of that age were eastern Europeans (Slsvs, etc), Irish catholics, Jews, all catholics actually who they called 'papists'., and anyone else who wasn't western European, protestant. If you can defend kids in cages, and for some quietly applaud it,  it's about demographic changes. 

When the economy crashes it won't matter. They are voting for non economic reasons. There are tons of Republicans who lost out financially after the crash in 2008 and still voted for McCain. There will be millions who will vote for Trump after a crash, even if they will lose their job or farm as a result. In their minds, long term, they stand a much better chance of recovery with someone who will maintain the status quo. The religious right will vote for Trump no matter what. The religious right are similar to other zealot, tightly knit religious groups in that they will try and take care of each other in bad times and they see their vote as a religious act. 

Trump will blame a crash on anyone or any thing but himself and some will echo it. Not because they believe it deep down, but the alternative is Sanders or Warren. They will, will themselves to believe it. If this past election recently is any indication, we may break records for the number of people voting. The Republican that lost the governorship of Kentucky had a record turnout of Republicans. What Republican strategists all know is that there are simply too many progressives/liberals/Democrats out there. If Democrats or people who ideologically compare to Democrats vote, Republicans will lose and lose big. Virginia had record turnouts for Republicans when their legislature went Democratic for the first time in decades. That is why Republicans employ strategies that will reduce turnout such as voter ID or reduce the effectiveness of Democrats such as gerrymandering. It's self survival. 

The future doesn't bode well for Republicans. They have the majority of only one niche: white males. And that number is dropping annually. The only person I can see winning for them in the immediate/intermediate (next 8-10 years) future is possibly Nikki Barber. The country is going to shift far left in the future based on simple demographics. Mllennials, Gen x and Gen y are overwhelmingly progressive. 

So, back to economics. Back in 2008 it was a housing bubble. This time around we have a housing bubble but also a few other bubbles and when I say bubble I mean exposure over 1 trillion dollars (to put it in context our annual budget is 5 trillion). Credit card/personal debt bubble, car loan bubble, corporate debt bubble, student loan bubble. All at least 1.5 trillion and the corporate debt bubble is at least 20 trillion. AT&T's debt is more than almost all countries. I've read reports of it being over 200 billion dollars. This article is from a year ago and its 160 billion

https://www.ifre.com/story/1503131/atts-debt-bigger-than-most-countries-starts-to-worry-investors-5cr3zp3mvq

 

If the economy is so great, then why don't 40% of Americans have $400? https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-americans-struggle-cover-400-emergency-expense-federal/story?id=63253846

On a sidenote, it shows you how incompetent the Democrats are at politics that they don't 'site this number whenever Trump raves about the 3% unemployment rate. Love them or hate them, the Republicans have to be respected thoroughly for the effectiveness of how they perform politics. Amazing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Flashermac said:

Hearsay is hearsay. Since when is it admissiable in a court of law, regard;less of who claims to have heard it?

" Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. These out-of-court statements do not have to be spoken words, but they can also constitute documents or even body language. The rule against hearsay was designed to prevent gossip from being offered to convict someone.

"Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies."

p.s. I'd once upon a time thought of becoming a lawyer until I came to my senses. Even so, I took plenty of pre-law courses and scored high enough that I could have gone to law school.

1st you've got to distance yourself, from the Trumpanzee "everything is 4th, 5th, 6th distance hearsay".

A lot of this stuff is 1st person evident of people who were there.

ahem

and secondly, for the bits that are hearsay, 

 excerpts

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

Generally, state law follows the rules of evidence as provided in the Federal Rules of Evidence, but not in all cases. The states can and do vary as to the exceptions that they recognize.

Most Common Hearsay Exceptions

There are twenty-three exceptions in the federal rules that allow for out-of-court statements to be admitted as evidence even if the person made them is available to appear in court. However, only a handful of these are regularly used. The three most popularly used exceptions are:

  1. Present Sense Impression. A hearsay statement may be allowed if it describes or explains an event or condition and was made during the event or immediately after it.
  2. Excited Utterance. Closely related to the present sense impression is the hearsay exception for an excited utterance. The requirements for this exception to apply is that there must have been a startling event and the declarant made the statement while under the excitement or stress of the event.
  3. Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement that is not offered for the truth of the statement, but rather to show the state of mind, emotion or physical condition can be an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. For instance, testimony that there was a heated argument can be offered to show anger and not for what was said.

Other Exceptions to Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

lots more here - https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html

 

And lastly Flash, this stuff that congress is doing, it's not court, it's congress.

They have power that is distinct, even I know that, and I'm not a 'merican

Mark my words, years later, the Trump-Russia Treason aspect will be talked about. If it doesn't get an airing in the next months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now then as Marie L. Yovanovitch testifies in Congress, Trump tweets to intimidate her - witness tampering anyone?

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday denigrated Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former United States ambassador to Ukraine, even as she testified in the impeachment inquiry about how she felt threatened by Mr. Trump, leading Democrats to accuse him of trying to intimidate a witness in real time.

“Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?” Mr. Trump wrote, assailing her on Twitter to his 66 million followers and adding that “It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”

The president’s insults came as Ms. Yovanovitch told the House Intelligence Committee in powerful and personal terms of the devastation and fear she felt earlier this year, as she was targeted first by Mr. Trump’s allies and later by the president himself during a phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. Democrats said Mr. Trump’s onslaught amounted to an attempt to threaten Ms. Yovanovitch, who is still a State Department employee, and other potential witnesses against cooperating with the inquiry, a tactic that they said could itself be impeachable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/trump-witness-intimidation.html

And

Trump's mate - GOP strategist Roger Stone convicted on 7 counts of obstruction, witness tampering, and false statements

  • Roger Stone was convicted on Friday in federal court in Washington, DC, of obstructing justice, making false statements to investigators, and tampering with witness testimony.
  • The special counsel Robert Mueller’s office indicted Stone in January on one count of obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements to the FBI and congressional investigators, and one count of witness tampering.
  • The initial charging document contained a slew of details about Stone’s false statements to Congress about his interactions involving WikiLeaks.
  • Mueller’s team scrutinised the many late-night phone calls between Trump and Stone that took place during the 2016 campaign.
  • Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com/roger-stone-convicted-false-statements-witness-tampering-2019-11#kXfpTajtlcBTGtqx.99

So that Mueller report, has some substance, once people start reading it eh?

 

Shit           Fan           Hit

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the impeachment does not subscribe to traditional law. Wasn't meant to. For example, 3 of Trump's jurors are also his political opponents (Sanders, Warren Biden) for President and in any other court of law would have to recuse themselves. Potentially, a President could have his Supreme Court choice be the presiding justice. 

I pointed all this out to say that hearsay isn't relevant at all. The Republicans are surreptitiously applying rules of evidence, hearsay, etc, that are applicable to other courts but not to impeachment. And they know the American people don't know the difference. 

Senators, Congresspersons have gotten censured, etc, over things had they happened in the private sector, they could file a civil lawsuit and win. This is a political process. It's meant to be  A Republican can use hearsay or any other excuse they want as a reason not to impeach or convict, but hearsay in of itself is not only wholly admissible but can be used to convict if the Congressperson deems the person credible and beyond reproach. If the Pope gave hearsay evidence, its likely it would deemed very credible for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...