|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> don is a wuss /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1453879167 Message started by thumperclone on 01/26/16 at 23:19:27 |
|
Title: don is a wuss Post by thumperclone on 01/26/16 at 23:19:27 so he wont go to the debate hosted by fox cause meygan doesn't treat him fair [smiley=cry.gif] how would he deal with putan or that punk in north korea hows that song go "what a sharade you are" |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/16 at 05:43:16 I don't know what to think about Trump anymore...... Here's why. I'm in OK City this week and was eating dinner last night at the bar (where I eat 90% of my meals....) and the guy next to me was an aircraft mechanic. Actually, he's a very specific mechanic. He and his crew go to where a plane is broken down, fix it up and fly it back. Just got back bring a 777 back from Spain. He's a degreed engineer, very educated and hard worker obviously. We struck up conversation which I always turn to politics or religion (what else is there to talk about?...) but I didn't have to as this guy did it for me! He's voted republican all his life, and right now is a huge Trump fan. Huge. There's nothing Trump could do that would cause this guy to not vote for him. If Trump ran 3rd party, (which basically is what he's doing now) this guy would vote for him. No one sitting within earshot disagreed. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by raydawg on 01/27/16 at 05:59:09 Web, I work with those guys, hard work from a suitcase. As to trump, he is merely the benefactor of the rising dissatisfaction of politics, been growing steadily since Perot. The biggest bump has been the Reagan democrats have felt left out of their party, the young, and white middle class males AND women. It really is not an true endorsement of him personally, but a voice that is speaking back against the entrenched media, academia, and established party dogma..... Is it dangerous, perhaps, but so is revolution ;D |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 01/27/16 at 06:48:54 370502131405122D01120B600 wrote:
Scary... These people need to realize,... there's a difference between telling it like it is, and just saying whatever you want. :P |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by raydawg on 01/27/16 at 08:15:29 1305120F17020F14600 wrote:
Scary... These people need to realize,... there's a difference between telling it like it is, and just saying whatever you want. :P[/quote] Oh pray tell..... Did you read obamas interview on politico ? He says Bernie has the luxury of just saying anything, but Hillary has to be careful about what she says..... In other words, don't speaks the truth if it might cause you grief.... That bot us what has got us to this point.... You don't have to embellish or SPIN the truth |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 01/27/16 at 09:05:54 63706875706676110 wrote:
I guess that's your interpretation of this?... I think that they both believe in a tax system that is fair and not tilted towards, you know, the folks at the very top. But, you know, they — I think Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete longshot and just letting loose. I think Hillary came in with the — both privilege and burden of being perceived as the frontrunner. And, as a consequence, you know, where they stood at the beginning probably helps to explain why the language sometimes is different. ...but, a question later he said... I think that there's always just a rhythm to this thing. I think that if Bernie won Iowa or won New Hampshire, then you guys are going to do your jobs and, you know, you're going to dig into his proposals and how much they cost and what does it mean, and, you know, how does his tax policy work and he's subjected, then, to a rigor that hasn't happened yet, but that Hillary is very well familiar with. And— That's the difference between goals and plans... or ideology and reality... This is what I would like to achieve... but, reality requires that it be worked out in this way. ... both are legitimate... it's just that Hillary is at a different stage in the process. Bernie is explaining his goals... Hillary is explaining the actions she will take to achieve her goals. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by oldNslow on 01/27/16 at 09:06:42 Being a "wuss" has nothing to do with it. Pay attention to the viewership numbers for this debate compared to the last one. Without Trump there they will likely be down 50%. That translates into millions of dollars in lost advertising revenue. Trump is pissed at fox and is sticking it to them where it hurts the most, in their pocketbook. What he's done is made this debate irrelevant. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 01/27/16 at 09:29:30 I think viewership may go up... People will tune in to see what the candidates say about Trump while he's not there to answer back, and what Megyn Kelly will say as moderator. It's still a reality show, where Trump is the head clown,.. he just won't be there. ...it's still gossipy entertainment, rather than a serious election. It's ultimately the decomposition of the Republican Party, in a circus format. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/27/16 at 09:58:16 This is THE most important election in my life. Things dont change and I don't know IF we get another election. I'm Still, regardless of what it looks like , saying Hillary wins, America loses,,, I'm going with Cruz, tho Heidi scares the crap out of me. I'm Very concerned that He is compromised, but I don't Trust Trump either. Trump lost my support when he said he would continue the Ethanol subsidies. If free market won't support it, the People who consume it deem it less valuable than it costs, so, it's dead. And Cruz said something none of the others have said. What Obama has Done with executive action, I will UNdo, with executive action. Ohh, I'm solid down with that. Is it just an empty promise? I don't think so. Anyone who will filibuster for over twenty hours, no sitting down, no trip to the bathroom, now, that is not someone who is insincere. Trump is popular for several reasons He seems to be the guy who will shove a stick in the spokes of the front wheel on the run away government. But, he ALSO says that He is the Dealmaker,, anyone else get a knot in the gut? Negotiations are fine, until the Topic is one that is unconstitutional. As far as im concerned, the subsidies pick winners and losers, and don't serve the public, generally. In WWII, when GE was reverse engineering and developing the jet engine, sure, support them while they do that, but paying a farmer to NOT grow something, to keep the price up, paying for corn to be grown, to haul it off and make ethanol? Diminishing the food crops? Guys, that's a subsidy that we pay for on several levels. And it's WRONG that it exists. Subsidies are not free market and need to go away. The only place I see it as even POSSIBLY justified is when the payback from a developing technology would impact the nation. Like GE. And, GE, took the subsidies, developed technology, and , IMO, screwed the taxpayers who held them up and gave them the opportunity to develop. They developed technologies and manufacturing capabilities on taxpayer monies and blossomed into a great milking machine on the udder of the taxpayer. Just my opinion, not saying they didn't used to make great stuff, and im not saying that if I was head of the board of directors I would have done it differently. The teat was there to suck. And the milk was sweet and never ran dry. Who wouldn't want summa that? A few congressmen approach, and say We've decided that supper tonight is your left leg. But, we will negotiate. Being uncompromising is sometimes important. We've seen too many Deals made. Look at all the trade deals. How is it that American workers got destroyed in EVERY GOD darnED ONE OF THEM? And nobody does Fukkall about it. It's the new normal. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by thumperclone on 01/27/16 at 10:17:38 704E4F43514D4C220 wrote:
he doesn't answer questions either side steps or goes on the offensive your post is almost a direct quote from his campaign the debate should be about issues not ratings |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by oldNslow on 01/27/16 at 10:31:50 Quote:
Of course it should. But it won't be. And if you think fox news is more interested in the issues than they are in ratings and dollars you are kidding yourself. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by raydawg on 01/27/16 at 10:51:00 5741564B53464B50240 wrote:
I guess that's your interpretation of this?... I think that they both believe in a tax system that is fair and not tilted towards, you know, the folks at the very top. But, you know, they — I think Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete longshot and just letting loose. I think Hillary came in with the — both privilege and burden of being perceived as the frontrunner. And, as a consequence, you know, where they stood at the beginning probably helps to explain why the language sometimes is different. ...but, a question later he said... I think that there's always just a rhythm to this thing. I think that if Bernie won Iowa or won New Hampshire, then you guys are going to do your jobs and, you know, you're going to dig into his proposals and how much they cost and what does it mean, and, you know, how does his tax policy work and he's subjected, then, to a rigor that hasn't happened yet, but that Hillary is very well familiar with. And— That's the difference between goals and plans... or ideology and reality... This is what I would like to achieve... but, reality requires that it be worked out in this way. ... both are legitimate... it's just that Hillary is at a different stage in the process. Bernie is explaining his goals... Hillary is explaining the actions she will take to achieve her goals. [/quote] Oh I get its "legitimate" in the current political climate. This has been SOP for a spell now, but I believe this mindset is what the "anti" vote is voting against...... Let's use the AA awards and Hollywood as example where this "word smithing" eventually leads..... They have used racism as a tool against the right in a wholesale manner, now it has turned on those who use to use it to distract the oppositions ability to get out their message. A lie will always take a lie to cover it up.... You can ligitimize it all you want Bot, but it changes nothing and only futhers the practise of deception in the media, politics, etc.... |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by thumperclone on 01/27/16 at 13:44:11 635D5C50425E5F310 wrote:
of course fox is in business for $ don is still a wuss for runnin scared be cause she asks tough questions he doesn't know how to discuss or reason = debate shows a lack of leadership we will see how bill o riley treats him |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/16 at 14:59:25 It's ultimately the decomposition of the Republican Party, in a circus format. Nothing the Republican Party could do compares to all the Democrats standing by Bill Clinton the rapist..... Obama the boy-king who waves his executive order wand to go around congress or soon to be felon Hilary. the difference is the majority of the news telecast and the cultural media is controlled by those sympathetic to Democrats. That means somehow Trump gets portrayed as if he's the only lunatic when in reality, he's no crazier than Hilary, Bernie or Hopey-Change. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/16 at 16:18:06 I mean think about this for a second. Hillary is under investigation by the FBI. To say she's a liar is an understatement. If she tells you it's sunny outside better grab your umbrella. Her husband is a rapist and himself the king of all liars. He stood in front of a national audience, waggged his finger and lied through his teeth. He's a disbarred lawyer. If she gets elected this is the guy who's back in the White House? The other Democratic candidate is a socialist! All he wants to do is destroy the American economy by taxing everybody he thinks makes too much money. He thinks the most important thing is facing the world today is ......... wait for it ........ that the temperatures going to increase a fraction of a degree, maybe. and Donald Trump, a successful American businessman, is the candidate we should be afraid of in this scenario? |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 01/27/16 at 16:26:06 You want scandal?... How much screaming did you do over U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert?... A molester of legally underage boy students?... That's a hat trick of crimes... Underage, molestation, and then, lying under oath, about paying hush money... ...and boys!.. I know the crime is equal under law for underage girls, but,... that must have really messed up some kids lives... Monica,... was not under age... and not a boy... In fact, having an affair is not crime (though not a moral act)... Newt, Chenoweth (R-ID), and Rep. Dan Burton were all having affairs at the same time were going after Clinton... not to mention Hastert's child molesting past... Clinton looks like an amateur next to them... ::) Pffft! regardless,... I'm not talking about scandal or morality,...the Republican Party is fractured between the Religious Right, the Tea Party, and the billionaire money that feeds them... They don't know which arse to kiss without offending the other... |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by raydawg on 01/27/16 at 16:43:32 Trump is a publicity genius, and the establishment is falling on its own sword. I for a second don't know how he bridges his rhetoric, to realization. If he wins it will be vogue to rebel against his administration, as a GOD given right......or as Hillary say, patriotic ::) He will be called a fluke and not really representing American values ( which are?). You bet I'm worried, however, we collectively have kept electing these same politicians who never deliver, only blame and divert, why they themselves, and backers, thrive off our sweat..... We can NOT keep going down this path, its over, we are broke, and we keep bringing in more people that will add further burdens on a system that is busting at the seams.... The independents get it, the right is getting it with a complete rejection of Bush 3, and Hillary is struggling mightily to win her appointed candidacy, as the left is waking up to these liars and thieves. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/16 at 17:51:35 6C7A6D70687D706B1F0 wrote:
Trying to defend Clinton is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a Dixie cup: you'll never succeed and you just end up looking foolish. Bill is the gold standard of f'ing losers so punt and look for another battle! |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/16 at 17:53:15 Argue against Ann...... go ahead.... try. I WAS HOPING FOR A TALLER HONEST MAN January 27, 2016 Did you ever think you'd live to see anchor babies discussed on TV every night? H1-B visas replacing American workers? Illegal alien murderers? Mexican rapists? Could you ever have imagined that instead of Republicans weeping over illegal aliens "living in the shadows," we'd see them assailing one another for having once supported amnesty? It's all Trump. Everything we've been begging politicians to talk about for the past decade, Donald Trump has brought up with a roar. But the conservative Miss Grundys complain that Trump isn't satisfactory. They say he's "not a serious person"; he's "a clown," a "vulgarian"; he's not a "constitutional conservative" -- you know, like the people who ignore the Constitution on "natural born citizen." This is not an election about who can check off the most boxes on a conservative policy list, or even about who is the best or nicest person. This is an election about saving the concept of America, an existential election like no other has ever been. Anyone who doesn't grasp this is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The nitpickers are like the cartoon of Diogenes looking over the man before him, and saying: "I was hoping for a taller honest man." You're not getting a "taller honest man." Trump is our only shot to save America, if there's still time. Only a TV reality show celebrity, self-financing brash billionaire, who is perfectly comfortable in front of a gaggle of microphones and loves to hit back, could do what Trump is doing. Until Trump rose like a phoenix, Mitt Romney was the best we ever had on immigration. Close your eyes and try to imagine Romney saying the things Trump is about immigration. It quickly becomes apparent why no one else could wage this campaign and survive the attacks -- except Trump. After endless betrayals on immigration, including by half the current GOP field, I trust no one. But Trump is starting to convince me! At the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference in March 2013 -- about the same time the Republican National Committee was paying $10 million for a report instructing the GOP to "embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform" -- there were only two speakers who opposed amnesty: moi -- and Trump. (And that was only because the organizers didn't know what we were going to say, so they couldn't stop us.) Ted Cruz spoke at that CPAC. But not a word against amnesty. In more than a dozen tweets that year -- the very year that Marco Rubio nearly destroyed the nation with his amnesty bill, as the "conservative" media cheered him on -- Trump repeatedly denounced the maniacal push for amnesty: -- "Immigration reform is fine -- but don't rush to give away our country! Sounds like that's what's happening." (Jan. 30, 2013) -- "Amnesty is suicide for Republicans. Not one of those 12 million who broke our laws will vote Republican. Obama is laughing at @GOP." (March 19, 2013) -- "Now AP is banning the term 'illegal immigrants.' What should we call them? 'Americans'?! This country's political press is amazing!" (April 3, 2013) -- "TRUMP: IMMIGRATION BILL A REPUBLICAN 'DEATH WISH'"; bit.ly/18QRQjA via @BreitbartNews by @mboyle1 (June 4, 2013) Two years later, Trump announced he was running for president in a speech about "Mexican rapists," pledging to deport illegal aliens and build a wall. That speech was the biggest one-address bombshell since Sen. Joe McCarthy waved the list of 57 (not 206) Communists at the Wheeling, West Virginia, Lincoln Day Dinner in 1950. McCarthy bought this country another half-century of survival, and that's exactly what Trump is doing right now. Can you remember a single speech from any of the other candidates? Quick: Within five, how many Republicans are still running for president? Since that speech, I've felt like I'm dreaming. The networks are suddenly bristling with discussions of all the topics previously banned from television (unless I sneaked it in during a segment on ISIS). Manifestly, the voters are solidly with Trump. No wonder the networks never allowed immigration to be discussed. Trump didn't propose a "virtual" wall, something "better than" a wall, a "high-tech" wall or any of the usual deflections that mean: open borders. He said he'd build a wall. The more his Republican opponents claimed it couldn't be done, the more details Trump gave about the wall's precise specifications. When Trump first started talking about anchor babies, the entire media needed smelling salts, leading to this exchange with ABC's Tom Llamas: LLAMAS: That's an offensive term. People find that hurtful. TRUMP: You mean it's not politically correct and yet everybody uses it. LLAMAS: Look it up in the dictionary, it's offensive. TRUMP: I'll use the word anchor baby. Excuse me, I'll use the word anchor baby. Now, everybody says "anchor baby." It turns out that if Republicans don't immediately go prostrate and apologize for failing to adhere to the Nation magazine's stylebook, the word police don't have a "Plan B." After San Bernardino, Trump proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, and the media reacted as if he'd flown two planes into the World Trade Center. He didn't budge. It turned out that no one who is not a sanctimonious douche was offended. Trump keeps saying these things -- and he's not exactly getting kudos from the media. (Except on my webpage, where he's a huge hit!) He's never backed down. I'm beginning to think he believes what he says. Maybe it's time to stop believing what the "conservative" media says. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by oldNslow on 01/27/16 at 18:00:20 Quote:
He's definitely the one that both parties, but especially the Republicans, should be afraid of. If he somehow manages to win in November Trump isn't going to be able to fix what's wrong in Washington. No one is going to be able to do that. But he might be just the guy to burn the whole sorry mess to the ground. Trump may be a lot of things, some of them not very nice, but "wuss" isn't one of them. I don't think he'll have any problem with Putin or Kim Jong - Un, or any of the other assorted bad boys around the world. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/16 at 18:15:13 He's definitely the one that both parties, but especially the Republicans, should be afraid of. If he somehow manages to win in November Trump isn't going to be able to fix what's wrong in Washington. No one is going to be able to do that. But he might be just the guy to burn the whole sorry mess to the ground. If Trump is elected, it's possible he'll not be able to accomplish anything at all. That's a good thing. If we went 4 years without Washington 'fixing' things, we'd probably be better off.... |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by thumperclone on 01/28/16 at 09:57:51 he keeps avoiding direct questions he's a wuss |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by oldNslow on 01/28/16 at 10:43:48 wuss wo[ch861]os informal noun 1. a weak or ineffectual person (often used as a general term of abuse). verb 1. fail to do or complete something as a result of fear or lack of confidence. "she'll probably wuss out because she fears my mighty bowling prowess" Trump is neither weak nor ineffectual. If avoiding direct questions is what "wuss" means to you then you and I have quite different definitions of what the word means. "Avoiding direct questions" is pretty much what every politician everywhere specializes in. Trump actually does that less frequently than a lot of them do. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by thumperclone on 01/28/16 at 13:48:37 those define him perfectly making money is his forte debates are not |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/28/16 at 18:11:02 5549544C514453424D4E4F44210 wrote:
Well, Gee, if that's what it takes to be called a wuss,,,, Hmmmm, Let Me Think.. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by thumperclone on 01/28/16 at 21:56:10 he tried to bribe fox into donating 5mil to one of his charities and then he would show |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/29/16 at 16:16:17 Interesting take on it. Someone who is spending a fortune, not accepting any money from anyone in order to demonstrate that he won't be bought, but then tries to blackmail Fox for chump change? You Are aware that just reading it doesn't make it true, right? He Cost Fox a lot more than that by not showing. Fox did, and it's out there to find, go to court and prove that they can lie and it's protected speech. Shame on the courts for not calling it fraud. And if you believe ANY news source is above it, well, that's sad. And right now, im not pro trump, I'm just anti Hillary. Nothing wearing the dem hat is acceptable. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by WebsterMark on 02/02/16 at 11:03:22 Second Degree Bern......Mark Steyn He would be the oldest man ever elected president and 83 years old at the end of two terms - which we won't have to worry about because the entire country will have slid off the cliff long before then. But he's enthusing the base, and any base wants to be enthused. Hillary, by contrast, is in trouble not because she's a sleazy, corrupt, cronyist, money-laundering, Saud-kissing liar. Democrats have a strong stomach and boundless tolerance for all of that and wouldn't care were it not for the fact that she's a dud and a bore. A "Hillary rally" is a contradiction in terms: the thin, vetted crowd leave more demoralized and depressed than when they went in. To vote for Bernie is to be part of a romance, as it was with Obama. To vote for Hillary is to validate the Clintons' indestructible sense of their own indispensability - and nothing else. Hillary is a wooden charmless stiff who supposedly has enough money to be carefully managed across the finish line. But that requires Democratic electors to agree to be managed, too, and the Sanders surge is a strong sign that, while they're relaxed about voting for an unprincipled arrogant phony marinated in ever more malodorous and toxic corruption, they draw the line at such a tedious and charisma-free specimen thereof. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by thumperclone on 02/03/16 at 14:29:21 now he wants a do over cause cruze stole the votes |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/03/16 at 15:09:12 You afraid Cruz might lose? You're gonna vote for Hillary anyway, aren't you? No way she gets indicted, regardless of the fact that she is So much more guilty than Petreius. He screwed up, yeah, but if what he did was worth punishment, what she did was worth every bit as much and more. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/03/16 at 17:11:13 What exactly did she do that broke the law?... |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/03/16 at 18:26:45 Really? If you don't know, no one can tell you. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by pg on 02/03/16 at 18:43:18 2432253820353823570 wrote:
1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information A federal prosecutor would naturally focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor’s charging document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual. Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years. The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required. 2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material If the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and an accused person has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 may be “pled-down” to a single or to multiple misdemeanor counts under 18 U.S. Code § 1924. A misdemeanor conviction would probably result in a period of probation and a less significant fine. The prohibited conduct is the unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or its retention in an unauthorized location. The mens rea required is the intent to remove from government control or the intent to store the classified information in an unauthorized location. 3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally To sustain a charge under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b), a federal prosecutor need only prove that the accused transferred and held the only copies of official government records (whether classified or not), the very existence of which was concealed from government records custodians. The mens rea required is that an accused knows that official government records were transferred or removed from the control of government records custodians. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) is a felony with a maximum prison term of three years. 4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records Again, if the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and accused has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) can be “pled down” to a misdemeanor under 18 U.S. Code § 641. The prohibited conduct is the conversion of official records (whether classified or not) to the accused’s exclusive use and the mens rea is simply the intent to do so. Conviction on the lesser misdemeanor charge would likely result in a period of probation and the imposition of a fine. 5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees If it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, the accused can be convicted of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The mens rea is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years. 6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations If it can be proven that an accused knowingly concealed the existence of official records being sought by the Department of State Inspector General (DOS/IG) or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), such accused can be convicted of obstruction. The prohibited conduct is the concealment and withholding of documents that impede or obstruct an investigation. The mens rea is the intent to conceal or withhold. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519 is a felony with a maximum prison term of twenty years. 7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States 18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television 18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States If it can be proven that an accused arranged for the Department of State to hire an Information Technology (IT) specialist to primarily administer and maintain a private server system owned by the accused, then the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and probably wire fraud. The prohibited conduct is having the United States pay an employee salary and/or official travel funds for performing private services on behalf of accused. The mens rea is simply the knowledge of the employee’s status as a public servant and that the government was not fully reimbursed for the costs to the government of such services. The wire fraud conviction can be sought if it can be proven that accused used electronic means of communication in undertaking such scheme or artifice to defraud. 8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense If any accused and any third party can be proven to have colluded in any violation of federal, criminal law, then all involved can be charged with criminal conspiracy as well as being charged with the underlying offense. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/#ixzz3zABecjen Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/03/16 at 21:42:59 ...and,... do you seriously think, she "willfully" passed this info to the enemy?... Private servers were perfectly legal... no info was passed... and, no laws were broken... Do you honestly believe that she chose a private server, as part of a plot to secretly pass info to our enemies?... There are politicians that I would not put it past... Hillary is not one of them... That some messages are now classed as Top Secret... has no bearing. That private servers are no longer allowed... has no bearing, either... Can you hear how stupid this sounds?... I once flew,.. with a pocket knife in my pocket... :o Be afraid... |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by verslagen1 on 02/04/16 at 13:16:19 I guess Hellery's instruction to an underling to remove the "top secret" header doesn't count cause she's a women and couldn't possibly really understood what that meant. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by WebsterMark on 02/04/16 at 14:04:59 Do you honestly believe that she chose a private server, as part of a plot to secretly pass info to our enemies?... No. I don't think any reasonable person beliefs that; I know I don't. But do you think General Petraeus gave the notebooks with classified information on them to his lover so she would pass them on to the enemy? No, I don't think that and I don't believe you think that either. He was 'showing off' to his girlfriend. Still, a ton of bricks came down on him. Hilary did what she did because she thinks the laws apply to others, not her. A ton of bricks should come down on her too. The question I would ask her if as president, if one of her underlings did the same thing she did, would she get rid of them? I think the answer is yes. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/04/16 at 15:33:00 That's a better argument,... but,.. "what she did"?... Versy says she instructed her underling to remove Top Secret header... Where is this info from?... I haven't heard it. I'd be interested in the Who, What, Where, and Why of this... EDIT.. never mind... found the source. Just need to read up. See what it's all about. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by WebsterMark on 02/04/16 at 18:37:33 The point is Petraeus was prosecuted for an act that while different than what Hilary did, how much different is the question. Taken together with her other acts (i.e. lying through her teeth about Bengazi, Watergate, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and on and on and on.....), she can't be president. Besides, her biggest problem (and she's got a lot of them) is no one likes her. If you were interviewing people for a job and you had to work with them everyday, why would you hire her? She's really never accomplished anything to speak of and she's not a likable person. "aw...thanks for coming in. We'll be in touch. Next." |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by thumperclone on 02/04/16 at 21:26:43 read a snip powell used his for classified material this just keeps getting better too bad Nixon didn't have a cell phone |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/05/16 at 09:08:40 When does GW get out of prison?... :-/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by verslagen1 on 02/05/16 at 09:41:57 next election we'll find out that both sides now have their own snapchat domains. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/05/16 at 10:30:05 The real crime is, I don't even know what Snapchat is... :-/ |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by thumperclone on 02/05/16 at 19:51:23 5B4D5A475F4A475C280 wrote:
the beat necks used to do it in coffee houses |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/05/16 at 21:11:02 When will people mature , err, gr o w Up, and realize that Finding evidence of misdeeds in the Other Party that went unpunished DOESN'T MEAN YOUR PARTY IS NOT ALSO CRIMINAL. Both sides suck. She CAN'T be indicted. She knows too much. Republicans are BEGGING Obama and the Justice department to Leave her ALONE. And talk about a Bitter Clinger. She is such a Bitter old broad, screeching and cackling,,who would WANT it in the same country, much less Running it? But she's next. So get ready. It's gonna go full metal jacket retard. A phrase soon to be so accepted that it will be a Before and After Puzzle on Wheel of Fortune. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/05/16 at 21:21:15 If she wins, it'll be slower progress than with Bernie... ... but, any movement forward, is better than backward... You do understand,... if you back up, you just have to follow the same path again?... (time, only has two directions... any forks are just temporary diversion )... A bad movie, the second time... just get's badder... :-? |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/05/16 at 21:29:59 Do you agree with the Constitution or not? If you Say you do, then can you read it? Would you PLEASE explain where the separation of church and state is and explain how it works? |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/05/16 at 21:36:59 4B545255484F7E4E7E46545813210 wrote:
That would be the thousandth time... Read it yourself... and do it without Alex Jones, Noorey, or Beck, flapping their gums... |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/05/16 at 21:40:21 I don't need their help. The State can't tell me what to believe Nor tell me where I can express my beliefs. I can pray in school. I , as a tax payer and owner of the school building, can put on a Christmas play. You are not required to attend. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/05/16 at 21:52:57 In, the separation of church and state... you would separate them, on one side,... while leaving anyone else on the other?... Surely, as the founders intended... :-? I believe in the right of others to believe exactly as I do... :-? |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/06/16 at 12:52:54 What? Do you know the INTENT of the words? The State can't initiate a religion or require you to participate in any religion. They also can't tell you where or when you are able to express your beliefs. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by cheapnewb24 on 02/06/16 at 14:07:13 I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of what the Founders intended except to mention that Christianity was more or less the status quo, even in that day. Getting away from the Church of England and its government-sanctioned (i.e. FORCED-- "my way or the stake-- [cough]--errr--highway") religion was the very reason for some of the most famous early migrations to the New World. It wasn't to get away from religion either, and not all of the groups learned their lesson about the government meddling with religion. In fact, the Puritans had their own form of government-mandated religion, and we all know what happened there. ::) [cough] Salem [cough]. What is most important is our liberty. If the majority of residents in a small town are religious/conservative people, and they want a school Christmas play with their own tax dollars, why should the atheist minority care? Does it hurt them? Does it poison their children? Aren't atheists supposed to be the more learned, open-minded people? If a kid wants to read the Bible in class as opposed to any other form of distraction, why should anyone care? If a teacher decides to accommodate to the religious students by giving them a moment of silence, who cares? If we wish to say "under God" in the Pledge, then who cares? Does it really frustrate the atheists that much, especially if it's optional? Be fair to people, let them practice their religion--or lack thereof-- in the most fair, respectful manner possible, even in the most public, tax funded of places and offices, and LEAVE THEM ALONE. Maybe a better point to make is that people should practice not giving a rip either way. :P |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/06/16 at 17:30:20 392F38253D28253E4A0 wrote:
Pardon my poor wording,.. I was rushed at the time... Meaning to say... I believe in the right of others to believe whatever they want,... as I do... As far as the founders,.. many, if not a majority were deists... not Christians... ... and if you are okay with a Christmas play on taxpayer dollars... how about a Muslim, Jewish, Deist, or Buddhist play?... Satanist?... Mine would be Festivus... ;D Realty, I could give a good god d@mn... Christmas is so far from being Christian it's a mockery... :-? |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/06/16 at 19:30:00 Who was what, what you are, none of it matters. The points I've made are being ignored... Or, maybe just not understood? |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/06/16 at 21:15:29 3A252324393E0F3F0F37252962500 wrote:
I'm guessing,... Huh?... :-? I know,... despite our differences, we actually agree on this... In fact,... I bet everyone here in the TT agrees on this... I know this,.. because, in spite of my non-belief... I'm generally accepted here. Other than no one ever agreeing with anything I say... ;D Regardless... don, is still a wuss... ;D... ...(he's half a foot taller than me, and outweighs me by 100lbs (he lies)... and I'm still sure I could take him out in 5 seconds)... ... and I'm a wuss... :P |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by cheapnewb24 on 02/06/16 at 21:28:10 Don is a wuss, huh? Would you sit there with Fox News and take it, or would you tell them to screw themselves? Which is more cowardly, taking the abuse, or bucking the system? Which takes more balls? |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/06/16 at 21:43:10 I'd jump across that table and bang Megyn 'till she sang opera!... Sorry,.... :-[ Did I say that out loud?... :-/... Joking, Dawg... I have the greatest respect for Megyn's journalism... Did I say that, out loud?... :-X... ...as an aside...(pun intended)... Megyn is a beautiful woman,...(dumb as a turnip)... ... but, who ever made her pose like this?... Looks like she's trying to force out a fart... ;D... Honestly,.. she should sue for defamation... http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/08/Megyn_kelly.jpg |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by cheapnewb24 on 02/06/16 at 21:50:59 4056415C44515C47330 wrote:
Pardon my poor wording,.. I was rushed at the time... Meaning to say... I believe in the right of others to believe whatever they want,... as I do... As far as the founders,.. many, if not a majority were deists... not Christians... ... and if you are okay with a Christmas play on taxpayer dollars... how about a Muslim, Jewish, Deist, or Buddhist play?... Satanist?... Mine would be Festivus... ;D Realty, I could give a good god d@mn... Christmas is so far from being Christian it's a mockery... :-?[/quote] Since you say that, I understand why there would be a problem. I would be concerned myself. If the school or other public setting consisted primarily of those other religions, it might work, but, in a conservative Christian community, a lot of people would be upset. They would be alarmed because they believe that their nation will receive the curse of God if it's not Christian, and they are afraid of the other religion potentially poisoning their children's minds. Religions tend to oppose each other you know. They are afraid of the spiritual significance of messing with other religions and want nothing to do with them. Some (perhaps not all) of these other religions feel the same way about Christianity. If it were a Muslim event in a conservative Christian community, there could be rioting in the streets. You know Islam gets a bad rap from those ISIS nuts--A lot of mistrust there--can you blame them? And, as far as Satanists are concerned, who likes them anyway? They do follow Satan for crying out loud! ;D Of course, if you don't give them what they want, they might cast a spell on you or worse.... :-X I won't say it... too nasty. :-X |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/06/16 at 21:59:35 Oh... well, I didn't mean it... :-? ... but,.. it wouldn't need elaboration... Opera,.. is opera... |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/06/16 at 22:41:44 7D767B7F6E707B697C2C2A1E0 wrote:
I believe, the purpose of separating church, from state,... is for the very reason you outline, above... Not to protect the majority,... but the minority from persecution by the majority... Imagine,... if you were in a state, or township, where the majority was Muslim... and wanted you to stop and kneel, 5 times a day,... or for your wife to wear a burka, ... or forbid you from having a plastic Jesus on your dashboard... Whatever... we just don't want any majority, of any influence of faith, dictating what we should do, believe, or bow to... It protects your right, to be a weirdo, among the masses. We're all a little weird,.. in one way or another... :-? The separation,.. is to protect the minority, not the majority. This is nature of all rights... The Bill of Rights, protects individual freedoms over the rule of the majority... |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by raydawg on 02/06/16 at 22:49:29 6E786F726A7F72691D0 wrote:
I believe, the purpose of separating church, from state,... is for the very reason you outline, above... Not to protect the majority,... but the minority from persecution by the majority... Imagine,... if you were in a state, or township, where the majority was Muslim... and wanted you to stop and kneel, 5 times a day,... or for your wife to wear a burka, ... or forbid you from having a plastic Jesus on your dashboard... Whatever... we just don't want any majority, of any influence of faith, dictating what we should do, believe, or bow to... The separation,.. is to protect the minority, not the majority. This is nature of all rights... The Bill of Rights, protects individual freedoms over the rule of the majority...[/quote] Whoa there lil' buddy...... Meg musta jumped some dormant brain cells. I agree and concur 100% with your statement :D Edit: BTW, if it is prepared proper, turnips are good to eat, YUM :-* |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/06/16 at 22:52:34 4F5C44595C4A5A3D0 wrote:
Take two aspirin,... and call me in the morning... ;D |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/07/16 at 06:57:21 We aren't a Democracy. The majority can't vote to eat your leg. Nor can the State or any group DEMAND I participate in any religious activity that is against MY beliefs. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/07/16 at 07:21:50 524D4B4C51566757675F4D410A380 wrote:
Today,... I feel grateful. Thanks for that... :-? |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/07/16 at 07:45:12 The point, while possibly humorous, was really meant to get people to rethink what we are taught. Our talking heads and electeds are perpetually calling us a GREAT DEMOCRACY. Horse CRAP. We are a Republic. The People are the Sovereign. The electeds are the equivalent of the hired help in a rich mans mansion. That's what it was meant to be. Ignorance of position and the concentration of power in D.C., folks. If the kids on the football team want to kneel and pray before a game, thats their Right. If a quarterback throws a ball and it's caught and he believes Gods own hands put that ball in the receivers hands and he has a religious experience over it, no one can tell him not to. And if kids want to hand out Christmas cards at school, that is their RIGHT, as long as they do it when it isn't a disruption to the teachers teaching. Sa y, get there early, hand them out as kids filed in. If someone doesn't want to receive it, they are within their Right to decline to so much as touch it, if it's offensive to them. If a Muslim busts out a prayer rug and starts chanting during class, well, that is not exactly conducive to the learning environment. I don't know what is appropriate there. It'll be interesting to see how it is dealt with as the numbers increase. Maybe at certain times they will each file quietly from their classes and meet in a room for their prayer time. I don't know how it is done now, where they are from. And no, I don't have a problem with the idea of those people who believe what they believe having a place to do what they do in a school. The SCHOOL can't tell anyone what they Must do, religiously, nor can the State. And, the First Amendment guarantees our Right to expression. Bunches of Americans have no clue what we had, what we've seen diminished and what will soon be gone, unless we wake up. |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by Serowbot on 02/07/16 at 07:56:49 495650574A4D7C4C7C44565A11230 wrote:
I don't understand where you get this... How does a "Republic" make the people more "Sovereign" than a regular Democracy?... A Republic is nothing more than a Representative Democracy. This seems less democratic than a pure democracy, where every person would get one vote. The Bill of Rights, exists to protect the rights of individuals against the will of the majority... No laws can be made that infringe on them... Thank God for that... |
|
Title: Re: don is a wuss Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/07/16 at 08:12:54 Sometimes the C AND P function just don't play right, but you pretty much nailed it with the last paragraph. https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm We aren't a monarchy, we have no King, well, that's debatable, but, according to the founders, we were Meant to be a Republic. And back then, businessmen would go to D.C., often at the urging of the community, to SERVE, nobody Wanted to stay in D.C., being paid for sitting behind a desk and worrying about how to help America and Americans prosper wasn't fun. Eventually those attitudes changed. People learned how to make fortunes by being in office. What was prior to 1913 im not completely sure, but since? Everything that the Fed declared as their reason to exist, they have failed fully, wholly and miserably at. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |