Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2019 17:58:15 GMT -8
Its a scummy, clickbait headline but if we are only going to judge the book by its cover, then I guess it is biased. TRO Edit: if we also get to be outraged at scummy summaries to generate clicks, we should also be outraged at summaries which leave out details like eliminating food stamps for people making more than 130% of the federal poverty line (which is around $32000 annual for a family of 4). Also, that $1.9B savings over 5 years is a bit offset by the $1.1-1.2B cost to 40 states and DC. Regarding the “1.1-1.2b cost to 40 states and DC”. Is that money the feds have to pay the states, or money the states will choose to pay if the feds cut this program? The article made it seem like it would be administrative costs to the states to comply with the removal of an automatic registration program TRO |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 23, 2019 18:14:21 GMT -8
The so called community
Members of the NAACP are calling for President Trump's impeachment, the latest effort to push members of Congress to pursue impeachment against the president.
NAACP delegates representing local branches of the civil rights organization voted unanimously on Tuesday to call for Trump's impeachment, the group announced on Twitter.
The group is holding its annual convention in Detroit. The Hill has reached out to the NAACP for a statement on its decision. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the vote.
"Trump’s misconduct is unmistakable and has proven time and time again, that he is unfit to serve as the president of this country," NAACP President Derrick Johnson tweeted
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 23, 2019 19:34:59 GMT -8
And he will get out and do more harm.
A Seattle man was arrested over the weekend and accused of throwing coffee on a baby -- just two days after he'd been released from jail after serving eight months for randomly punching a man.
Q13 Fox reported that the suspect, Francisco Calderon, has been convicted more than 70 times, and 14 of those convictions were on assault charges.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Jul 24, 2019 4:24:15 GMT -8
And he will get out and do more harm. A Seattle man was arrested over the weekend and accused of throwing coffee on a baby -- just two days after he'd been released from jail after serving eight months for randomly punching a man. Q13 Fox reported that the suspect, Francisco Calderon, has been convicted more than 70 times, and 14 of those convictions were on assault charges. I’d actually be okay with just putting him down. He’s a continuous drain on society and has been given enough chances. Time to move on. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 6:19:34 GMT -8
And he will get out and do more harm. A Seattle man was arrested over the weekend and accused of throwing coffee on a baby -- just two days after he'd been released from jail after serving eight months for randomly punching a man. Q13 Fox reported that the suspect, Francisco Calderon, has been convicted more than 70 times, and 14 of those convictions were on assault charges. I’d actually be okay with just putting him down. He’s a continuous drain on society and has been given enough chances. Time to move on. He is human trash and needs to be taken out. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 6:23:23 GMT -8
F U Apple!
Apple Inc. has asked the Trump administration to exclude components that make up the forthcoming Mac Pro high-end desktop computer from import tariffs, weeks after planning to re-locate production of the line to China from Texas.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 6:28:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 6:42:57 GMT -8
The country will have a good opportunity to pick a side.
CHICAGO (CBS) — One by one, little boys and girls took turns smashing a piñata shaped like an ICE officer.
Some are asking was this event at a community block party in bad taste?
The event was organized by a chamber of commerce comprised of over 25 East Side businesses. A representative said they never would have imaged their event would cause commotion.
But one the people behind the group that brought the piñata said they were banking on making a statement during East Side Community Day in Chicago.
“Some parents were holding their kids to hit the piñata,” said Anthony Martinez of Los Brown Berets.
Pictures posted on social media show several other children in line waiting to take a swing at the political piñata. Many Facebook commenters applauded the idea while others were in disagreement, calling the activity ignorant, disrespectful and teaching the young to hate.
“It was not meant in a negative way at all towards law enforcement,” said Martinez, who leads the Chicago chapter of Los Brown Berets, a nationwide activist group aimed at overcoming inequalities against Chicanos.
Martinez said his organization bought a Batman piñata and transformed it into a Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.
“We’re just making a statement” that the federal government’s recent actions regarding deportation are wrong, Martinez said.
“Taking children from their parents, separating them,” Martinez added.
At the same event, children were offered a chance to throw balls at a painted image of President Trump.
“And it affected the event, and that’s OK,” said Marvin Covington of the East Side Chamber of Commerce.
“It wasn’t told to me, ‘Hey, there’s going to be an ICE piñata coming, but it was there,” he said.
The organizers of the mid-July event meant to be fun and family-oriented is now creating factions within the community. When asked whether there would be ICE piñatas present next year, Martinez couldn’t say.
“That’s not for me to say, because I didn’t know they were coming this year,” Martinez said.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 6:57:41 GMT -8
A Georgia woman who reportedly fired a gun into the floor of a McDonald's kitchen Monday afternoon had a pretty wild motivation for her crime: cold french fries.
The woman was gone by the time police arrived on the scene but authorities were later able to track her down in her car and arrest her.
the victim, 19-year-old fast-food worker Jacob Jordan, told police his attacker was mad about the long line at the drive-thru, and also said Jordan deserved to be hurt because had voted for Donald Trump in 2016. In fact, Jordan was too young to vote when Trump was elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 6:59:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 7:26:40 GMT -8
This guy knows what is going on.
A Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee ripped into Robert Mueller at Wednesday’s hearing, claiming that the special counsel violated Justice Department principles when he failed to decide if President Trump committed a crime without exonerating him.
“Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” asked Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, a former federal prosecutor. “Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”
When Mueller didn’t respond, Ratcliffe asked the 74-year-old former special counsel to “give an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined.”
“I cannot, but this is a unique situation —” Mueller said before he was interrupted by Ratcliffe.
“Let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because — I’ll tell you why — it doesn’t exist,” said Ratcliffe.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 7:31:20 GMT -8
The so called media does not discuss this much for some reason.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has nearly 1,000 investigations open into attempted intellectual property theft, nearly all of them involving Chinese, FBI director Christopher Wray said Tuesday.
"There is no country that poses a more severe counterintelligence threat to this country right now than China... and I don't say it lightly," Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"We have as we speak probably about a thousand-plus investigations all across the country involving attempted theft of US intellectual property, whether it's economic espionage or counter proliferation, almost all leading back to China," he said.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 7:43:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Jul 24, 2019 8:24:19 GMT -8
F U Apple! Apple Inc. has asked the Trump administration to exclude components that make up the forthcoming Mac Pro high-end desktop computer from import tariffs, weeks after planning to re-locate production of the line to China from Texas. Fuck Apple. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 9:40:29 GMT -8
Here is the headline: Black voters say they will remember Trump's racist tweets www.apnews.com/cdfdd19f44db4fb6b1ed9cbac9d5d287What the story does not bother to cover is that black voters were never going to vote for ANY GOP candidate anyway. This voting block is completely alreadt decided for the foreseeable future. Turnout could be in play but who they will vote for is not and it has been this way a very long time. So go ahead with your empty threats and vote exactly the way you were going to anyway. Your blind loyalty to a party that is selling you blame the other guy mentality is happy to keep you on the plantation. How has this blind loyalty been working for you the past few decades? The only winners are your so called leaders who do in fact make money as race hustlers. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 9:41:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 9:47:00 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 9:51:57 GMT -8
This guy knows what is going on. A Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee ripped into Robert Mueller at Wednesday’s hearing, claiming that the special counsel violated Justice Department principles when he failed to decide if President Trump committed a crime without exonerating him. “Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” asked Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, a former federal prosecutor. “Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?” When Mueller didn’t respond, Ratcliffe asked the 74-year-old former special counsel to “give an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined.” “I cannot, but this is a unique situation —” Mueller said before he was interrupted by Ratcliffe. “Let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because — I’ll tell you why — it doesn’t exist,” said Ratcliffe. Oh please. It happens all the damn time where someone is not prosecuted because there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt at that time. To exonerate someone, legally (and Haywood, please let me know if I am off base), is to state conclusively they cannot be proven to have committed the crime. To say you cannot prove someone is innocent is not the same as saying you cannot prove someone to not be guilty (legally). It’s picking nits, and very careful words selected by Mr. Mueller, but being unable to prove someone is innocent is not the same as exonerating that person. Mr. Ratcliffe also selected his words very carefully (something I would expect from any former prosecutor) to imply something which is not there. TRO |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Jul 24, 2019 10:33:24 GMT -8
Eric Swalwell is a fucking idiot. How this clown got elected just blows my mind
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 11:44:25 GMT -8
This guy knows what is going on. A Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee ripped into Robert Mueller at Wednesday’s hearing, claiming that the special counsel violated Justice Department principles when he failed to decide if President Trump committed a crime without exonerating him. “Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” asked Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, a former federal prosecutor. “Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?” When Mueller didn’t respond, Ratcliffe asked the 74-year-old former special counsel to “give an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined.” “I cannot, but this is a unique situation —” Mueller said before he was interrupted by Ratcliffe. “Let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because — I’ll tell you why — it doesn’t exist,” said Ratcliffe. Oh please. It happens all the damn time where someone is not prosecuted because there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt at that time. To exonerate someone, legally (and Haywood, please let me know if I am off base), is to state conclusively they cannot be proven to have committed the crime. To say you cannot prove someone is innocent is not the same as saying you cannot prove someone to not be guilty (legally). It’s picking nits, and very careful words selected by Mr. Mueller, but being unable to prove someone is innocent is not the same as exonerating that person. Mr. Ratcliffe also selected his words very carefully (something I would expect from any former prosecutor) to imply something which is not there. TRO The yes or no aspect of the question and answer is refreshing, no long winded defection to the point of not even answering the question. If you cant find evidence to prosecute someone I completely understand that the person may still be guilty. I think it fair to simply say we don't have the required evidence to go forward with an indictment/prosecution. I dont know how you can ever clear someone from obstruction though because something could always come up later. In the case of a murder investigation you can clear someone through DNA or other method to 100% confirm no involvement and there is no way something will change that later. Another thing to consider. Trump was 100% cleared of collusion. Can you obstruct an investigation that was still 100% able to clear you? |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 11:48:28 GMT -8
The radical left speaks:
In the interview, Al Jazeera host Medhi Hasan said some Americans feel justified in fearing Islam, not out of hate but for their own safety, before listing a number of radical Islamic terror attacks. Omar dismissed this suggestion immediately and laid the blame on white males instead, calling for the profiling and monitoring of caucasian men.
"I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country," she replied.
"And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe -- Americans safe inside of this country -- we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men."
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 11:51:49 GMT -8
Here is the correction Mr. Mueller gave today:
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”
If you spend that much time and money and your staff is filled with democrats, and you cant determine if a crime was committed is it not fair to presume one was not then committed? If not how can you presume one was committed?
|
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Jul 24, 2019 12:07:39 GMT -8
Here is the correction Mr. Mueller gave today: “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.” If you spend that much time and money and your staff is filled with democrats, and you cant determine if a crime was committed is it not fair to presume one was not then committed? If not how can you presume one was committed? Mueller with his "Scandal of Father Brown" moment. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 12:10:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by LordNelson on Jul 24, 2019 12:23:14 GMT -8
Here is the correction Mr. Mueller gave today: “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”If you spend that much time and money and your staff is filled with democrats, and you cant determine if a crime was committed is it not fair to presume one was not then committed? If not how can you presume one was committed? In other words, nothing investigated over two years met the threshold of a crime and that's what the Dems need to finally get through their thick heads. For their own health. If Dems have any chance of winning in 2020, they need to STOP chasing Trump's coat tails and put together a logical platform that can win in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Stop treating our southern border like an annoyance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 12:27:54 GMT -8
Oh please. It happens all the damn time where someone is not prosecuted because there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt at that time. To exonerate someone, legally (and Haywood, please let me know if I am off base), is to state conclusively they cannot be proven to have committed the crime. To say you cannot prove someone is innocent is not the same as saying you cannot prove someone to not be guilty (legally). It’s picking nits, and very careful words selected by Mr. Mueller, but being unable to prove someone is innocent is not the same as exonerating that person. Mr. Ratcliffe also selected his words very carefully (something I would expect from any former prosecutor) to imply something which is not there. TRO The yes or no aspect of the question and answer is refreshing, no long winded defection to the point of not even answering the question. If you cant find evidence to prosecute someone I completely understand that the person may still be guilty. I think it fair to simply say we don't have the required evidence to go forward with an indictment/prosecution. I dont know how you can ever clear someone from obstruction though because something could always come up later. In the case of a murder investigation you can clear someone through DNA or other method to 100% confirm no involvement and there is no way something will change that later. Another thing to consider. Trump was 100% cleared of collusion. Can you obstruct an investigation that was still 100% able to clear you? In my position of limited enlightenment on this specific matter, I do not think Mr. Trump obstructed justice however I do think he knowingly attempted to obstruct justice. It was only insubordination which kept Mr. Trump from doing so. TRO |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 12:36:24 GMT -8
There is a significant credibility crisis:
BY OLIVIA BEAVERS AND KATIE BO WILLIAMS - 03/13/18 07:55 PM EDT
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee say Republicans prematurely closed the panel’s investigation into Russian interference despite what they say is “significant evidence” of collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.
“There is significant evidence and much of it in the public domain on the issue of collusion,” Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, said during a press conference on Tuesday flanked by other Democrats on the panel.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 12:42:14 GMT -8
The DNC has been saying for months there was solid evidence for collusion. The DNC has said that Trump will block the Mueller report or the GOP will defund it.
The DNC said we should all accept the findings of the Mueller report (before it came out).
Now force their savior (Mueller) to testify and they get nothing.
I am glad they did this because it will only hurt them.
The GOP needs to use the credibility issue. Mueller findings and also the way the Judge was treated. The judge was found guilty with ZERO evidence by the DNC.
That same DNC is now complaining Al Franken was forced out despite a picture showing what he did.
The DNC is open border and anti cop.
If the GOP cat figure out to use these very strong middle america issues to take back the house and re-elect Trump they are idiots.
This should be a very easy election as the DNC is trying to hand it all over. They are actually that tone deaf.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Jul 24, 2019 12:44:15 GMT -8
This guy knows what is going on. A Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee ripped into Robert Mueller at Wednesday’s hearing, claiming that the special counsel violated Justice Department principles when he failed to decide if President Trump committed a crime without exonerating him. “Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” asked Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, a former federal prosecutor. “Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?” When Mueller didn’t respond, Ratcliffe asked the 74-year-old former special counsel to “give an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined.” “I cannot, but this is a unique situation —” Mueller said before he was interrupted by Ratcliffe. “Let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because — I’ll tell you why — it doesn’t exist,” said Ratcliffe. Oh please. It happens all the damn time where someone is not prosecuted because there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt at that time. To exonerate someone, legally (and Haywood, please let me know if I am off base), is to state conclusively they cannot be proven to have committed the crime. To say you cannot prove someone is innocent is not the same as saying you cannot prove someone to not be guilty (legally). It’s picking nits, and very careful words selected by Mr. Mueller, but being unable to prove someone is innocent is not the same as exonerating that person. Mr. Ratcliffe also selected his words very carefully (something I would expect from any former prosecutor) to imply something which is not there. TRO This is what made the report regarding obstruction of justice so questionable. It is not the job of the special counsel or a prosecutor to exonerate someone of a crime. Hell, even a jury doesn't exonerate someone of a crime. They find them not-guilty which does not necessarily mean innocent. The report should have simply stated that they are not charging Trump with obstruction of justice. Mueller, or the person who wrote the report, was trying to have it both ways with the we do not exonerate statement in the report. Based on what I have read today Mueller several times was unfamiliar with what was stated in the report so it leads to the belief that he wasn't heavily involved in writing it. I didn't watch the testimony but the one question I would want asked is when did Mueller come to the conclusion that there was no collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia? If he came to that conclusion prior to the 2018 elections and didn't state it publicly that, in and of itself, is in a way interfering with the election because it left out there the now blown apart claims of Trump colluding with Russia which played a major factor in the Dems taking the house back over. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Jul 24, 2019 12:46:50 GMT -8
Schiff has absolutely zero credibility and should be removed from the House Intelligence Committee. He repeatedly said there was solid evidence of collusion on just about every major news network. This was proven to be a 100% lie. |
|
