Jump to content
MunoRN

MunoRN

Registered User
advertisement

Activity Wall

  • MunoRN last visited:
  • 3,525

    Content

  • 0

    Articles

  • 62,985

    Visitors

  • 0

    Followers

  • 1

    Likes

  • 0

    Points

  1. MunoRN

    The Caravan

    Trump's view on "how to solve the problems" includes policies that result in separating kids from their families without serving any other purpose, do you agree with that policy and consider it to be evidence of how "Trumpsters do care"?
  2. MunoRN

    The Caravan

    Sorry for the delayed response, ski season. It reasonable to ask for justification for calling anyone an idiot, so here's why I find her to be an idiot: She's done everything possible to lose a public relations battle to a man that it would take an idiot to lose a PR battle to. Trump is rightly criticized for being a conspiracy theorist, for using his public office to help enrich his family, and for using threats of thinly veiled violence against those of differing views. A non-idiot would know that if those are all descriptions that could in any way apply to yourself, then you should be the last person to loudly accusing Trump of any of these things, since all that does is establish that maybe the democrats aren't all that much better than Trump. Holding the high ground against Trump shouldn't be all that hard, but Waters has negated much of the high ground argument. This particular situation is more evidence of that. There is a legitimate claim to be made that the Trump administration is intentionally causing harm to children, their policy to pursue a criminal rather than civil deportation process is what results in separating children from their parents, Trump himself has admitted this infliction of emotional trauma is intentional as a form of punishment. The case of this particular child however does not appear to have included any intention of harm, yet Waters at least suggested if not outright accused the CBP of this. Again, she's taken a valid criticism and re-defined it as an invalid one, that's the opposite of smart, which there are a number of names for.
  3. MunoRN

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    If you're not actually arguing that it's possible Trump didn't actually break the law then I'm honestly not sure what you mean, honest. A judge can certainly chose to deny a plea based on a variety of reasons, but the plea agreement itself is only between the prosecutor and defendant, and typically occurs before a judge is even assigned. I don't know that it's all that far outside of the range of possibility that Giuliani is the worst lawyer ever, just in the past week he's unwittingly admitted that his client "colluded" with the Russian government and also committed felonies in the process of getting elected president.
  4. MunoRN

    The Caravan

    According to Maxine Waters it should have been reported, but it should also be noted that she is an idiot. As tempting as it is to follow the "common enemy" rule and reflexively agree with folks like Waters, the child was pretty clearly no longer under CBP custody detainment when transferred to a hospital, since that would have required an agent to travel and remain with the child at times. There was likely a requirement to report to the CBP upon discharge, but that's different from being in custody.
  5. MunoRN

    The Caravan

    There doesn't appear to have been any obvious failures by CBP in the child's death, which of course doesn't mean it's not tragic when a 7 year old dies. Prior to being transported to a processing center, it was reported the child had been vomiting, so the CBP staffer reported to the processing center that the child would require medical evaluation upon arrival, when the bus arrived the child was not breathing, was treated appropriately by EMTs and Paramedics and then flown to an appropriate medical center in Texas. I'm not even sure they messed up on the requirement to report the death, CBP is required to report deaths that occur when someone is in their custody, this child died the next day while no longer in CBP custody.
  6. MunoRN

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    Even when the defendant enters a 'guilty' plea the Judge still determines if what the person pled guilty to is indeed a violation of law, the judge also refers to the specific statute of the law in question for sentencing purposes, a judge doesn't sentence someone for breaking a law that doesn't actually exist. The judge doesn't actually accept or decline the plea agreement, the plea agreement is between the prosecutor and the defendant. Dershowitz doesn't disagree that the law was violated here, neither does Giuliani. Dershowitz had argued a while back that so long as the purpose of the payments wasn't to help his election campaign then it wasn't against the law, now he has conceded that the law was broken, and along with Giuliani is now arguing it was illegal but so what?, Giuliani specifically arguing that it was illegal but it's not like he killed somebody. The applicable statute is US 52 SS 301xx, the statute that makes undisclosed contributions exceeding $25,000 a felony is US 52 SS 30109(d).
  7. MunoRN

    Mental Health Checks

    I'm not sure your point really works since those found to be mentally incapacitated aren't actually allowed to vote, same as gun ownership requirements that prevent the criminally insane from owning guns. Are you actually arguing that those who have been adjudicated to be mentally incapable of differentiating from right and wrong should be free to own guns?
  8. MunoRN

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    He pled guilty, and was also found guilty by the court. Pleading guilty doesn't negate the portion of the legal proceedings where the Judge determines if what you pled guilty is indeed a crime. Whether you've broken the law is pretty straightforward; spending money to help someone win an election and not reporting it is a crime. Your source made no attempt to argue that any of that happened, so I'm not sure what the basis is of arguing that what happened wasn't illegal.
  9. MunoRN

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    The FBI didn't arrange for Flynn to meet with Russian operatives on multiple occasions and then lie about it. Before the FBI even met with him, they were already aware that he had lied about receiving payments from the Russian government through RT, so he was likely already on a short leash. He then lied not just again, but again and again (he lied about having met and coordinating with Kislyak, he later lied about having met with other unnamed Russian operatives about sanctions on Israel, then again lied about the extent of his involvement with the Turkish government prior to the campaign).
  10. MunoRN

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    Felony fraud of a presidential election isn't something that happens "thousands of times, eveyday..." Mr. Von Spakovsky never quite gets to why the judge was wrong and this wasn't a felony, he only argues that he doesn't think the FEC wouldn't have voted this to be a violation, although that isn't all that relevant since the FEC only deals with regulatory infractions of election law, it's actual courts that deal with felony election law violations, as was the case here. There doesn't seem to be much gray area here; if money is spent for the purpose of helping someone get elected and it's not declared, then a crime has been committed, I've heard no arguments that this doesn't describe what happened. From Fox News' Judge Napolitano: ""Unfortunately, the president wasn't in the courtroom, and the people who were, the federal prosecutors, who had a statement from David Pecker, the guy that owns the - National Enquirer said it was for the campaign, the prosecutors said it was for the campaign, Michael Cohen said it was for the campaign. The president wasn't there. Maybe he should have had lawyers there. So, if you make an honest mistake in failing to report something, or if you take $100,000 and you're only supposed to take $2,500, you can correct that by returning the money, paying a fine and correcting the report. If you do this as part of a scheme to hide it, then it's not a civil wrong, then it's a crime. That's what the judge found yesterday."
  11. MunoRN

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    I did actually read the transcript, Comey never said that Page's FISA application was based on any unverified part of the dossier. He did say that much of the dossier had not been verified, but not that the FISA application was based on unverified information. On page 125 of the transcript, the person asking a question of Comey revealed that Page's Russia trip in July of 2016, which was the basis of the application, had been verified separately from the dossier. There was clear justification for a FISA warrant completely separate from any information that may have come from the dossier, so I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe the application can only be explained by bias.
  12. MunoRN

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    Except he never admitted he "went against FBI protocol and signed off on a FISA application that was based on unverified information". Again, what he said was that portions of the dossier have not been verified, but not that the portions the warrants were based on were unverified, and we now know they were easily verifiable at the time.
  13. MunoRN

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    One of Trump biggest, if not the biggest, campaign promises was that he was going to have Mexico pay for a wall, so of course he has something to lose by taking on hard stance on the argument that he is indeed a liar when it comes to what he promises to do, which is at least part of why many republicans have expressed concern over his 'hard line' stance on the wall. He also touted his abilities as a great negotiator, even though democrats have offered him full funding on the wall on two separate occasions in exchange for something he says he wants anyway, and now it appears he's lost his chance for wall funding.
  14. MunoRN

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    Comey said that some of the information in the Dossier has never been verified (ie the pee tape), but the portions of the memo that were referenced for the warrant in question (on Carter Page) was easily verifiable; The claim in the memo was that Page had visited Russia in July of 2016, a YouTube video of a speech he gave in July 2016 in Russia was posted to YouTube the day after the speech, so it's a bit absurd to suggest the warrant was inappropriate because they couldn't verify Page had visited Russia in July of 2016. And by the time of warrant application, Page had admitted to visiting Moscow while also working for the Trump campaign, he has also admitted to meeting with Russian government officials during that trip.
  15. MunoRN

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    To clarify with, Comey testified that not all of the various claims in the dossier had been verified (ie the pee tape). He did not say however that the warrant in question, which was on Carter Page, was granted by the FISA court based on unverified information. The FISA warrant was based on the claim that Page had travelled to Russia in July of 2016, and it's simply absurd to suggest that these wasn't verified separately from the dossier, that was posted the day after he gave a speech there, and Page himself had admitted to travelling to Russia, he also admitted to meeting with Russian government officials. The reason why this is worthy of a warrant is that in one of Papadopoulos's emails he mentioned having a low level campaign staffer travel to Russia under the guise of some other story in order to meet with Russian officials. So if I'm understanding this correctly, we should be outraged that a FISA warrant was issued based on easily verifiable information (again, there's a frickin' YouTube video of it) because the dossier didn't also verify the existence of the pee tape?
×