This is not normal: Trump's tweet storm

#501
#501
AshG said:
Oh, absolutely. It always has been and always will be. But the inherently conniving and manipulative nature of the oldest dance in history (Cain and Abel was pure politics on their end) doesn't give us a pass to act poorly. It's like saying "Oh, the tablecloth is dirty; I guess that means it's ok to **** myself."
Click to expand...
I get your point and you seem like a descent guy. Maybe you are even a Born Again Christian. Forgive me please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
#503
#503
BigOrangeD said:
I get your point and you seem like a descent guy. Maybe you are even a Born Again Christian. Forgive me please.
Click to expand...

No worries. I'm just an old fashioned Pollyanna conservative raised to think that if we treat people nicely even when we disagree with them they may come around to our way of thinking. And like the grandfather that instilled those values in me, I keep a double barrel shotgun behind the truck seat for those times when it's called for.

Time to grab some coffee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and BigOrangeD
#505
#505
AshG said:
No worries. I'm just an old fashioned Pollyanna conservative raised to think that if we treat people nicely even when we disagree with them they may come around to our way of thinking. And like the grandfather that instilled those values in me, I keep a double barrel shotgun behind the truck seat for those times when it's called for.

Time to grab some coffee.
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
#506
#506
37L1 said:
So? It is on the affiant. I didn't raise that as an issue, are you? What I questioned was the reliance on unvetted documentation being sworn to as being true. I never brought up the issue of the culpability of a nongovernmental informant.
Click to expand...
Show me, in the warrant application, where they swore the document was true.

They didn’t. They never swear to second hand information. In a case like this, or any involving second hand information, Law enforcement swear that they have received evidence and state what the evidence is. The judge determines how much weight to give it and whether that amounts to probable cause.

Who wrote the dossier? A non governmental informant. As the Supreme Court just told you, the veracity of their statements to police are not a recognized basis for challenging the validity of a warrant. If they were expected to always be able to prove their second hand information, they wouldn’t need a warrant to keep investigating.

Your argument is pure legal fiction.
 
#508
#508
RockyTop85 said:
Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154 - Supreme Court 1978 - Google Scholar

The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant.

Colorado v. Nunez, 465 US 324 - Supreme Court 1984 - Google Scholar

“We have, to be sure, recently concluded that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments entitle a defendant to a veracity *327 hearing if he makes a substantial preliminary showing that an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included in a warrant affidavit a false statement necessary to the finding of probable cause. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U. S. 154 (1978). But in so doing we emphasized that "[t]he deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant." Id., at 171.
Click to expand...
So you think that applies to LEO’s getting FISA warrants to kick off witch hunts based largely on CNN opinion editorials?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and BigOrangeD
#511
#511
Carl Pickens said:
Trump knows McCain was involved with the dossier BS and probably enjoys running him down.... I personally wouldn't do it, but McCain was no saint
Click to expand...
It all has a bigger purpose. The snowball has started to roll down hill and is getting bigger every day. D5
 
#513
#513
luthervol said:
lol....see my edit that was added 30 seconds after the initial post.
By the way, I know you don't really hate all people; just 98% of them.
Click to expand...

I don't really hate anyone, I just prefer not to have to deal with most. Especially those that think they know better than I what's good for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens, SpaceCoastVol, NorthDallas40 and 2 others
#517
#517
hog88 said:
I don't really hate anyone, I just prefer not to have to deal with most. Especially those that think they know better than I what's good for me.
Click to expand...
We still hate the Irish, right?
 
#525
#525
BigOrangeD said:
It's not true dude. Also not a crime.
Click to expand...

So I take it you have not. Thus, you do not know the sources of that information. Therefore, you are unqualified to judge its truth or falsity.

The issue is not its criminality. It is use of video to compromise him. If its true -- and really if there are hookers involved at all not just what happened -- then Trump must leave office immediately due to the Russians being in a position to blackmail him over it. It would not even be a close call. Out.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top