(10-09-2018 11:32 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Post related to thread title: Nikki Haley resigns as UN Ambassador.

Anyone seen speculation as to why?

I don't know if this counts as speculation, but what I heard was that she was exhausted, that she was not going to run for Prez in 2020, and that she would support Trump.

Not the speculation you wanted, eh?

Oh Jesus Christ.

I honestly don't think there's anything juicy to this - if I had I would have posted something. My guess is something along what you said, or that she didn't feel like she had been receiving enough support on positions (I know there have been issues with things like the Russian sanctions [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/trump-nikki-haley-russia-sanctions-526856] but that was months ago).

How did that post, which was made without any pretense, devolve into you trying to pick a fight?

Because today is one of the days he is PassiveAggressiveOwl

Speaking of passive aggressive...checked a mirror lately?

But curiosity overwhelms me. Who am I on the days when I am not PassiveAggressiveOwl?

Some speculation

Ask and ye shall receive.

(10-09-2018 06:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Some speculation

Ask and ye shall receive.

Boy, that was some pretty vague speculation!

Haley and Trump have knocked heads several times during her tenure and the friction is obvious. I think she has a combination of burnout, desire to not be the ambassador for the next 2 years, and realizing this is a great window in which to exit the Trump administration. The Republicans will certainly lose the house and have a fight for the senate. If the Rs are dealt a blow in November via loss of the senate, she definitely doesn't want to leave the post during a time of weakness which could impune her future political aspirations of which she has plenty. She is leaving on top with both her personal numbers looking good and the Republicans in as good as spot as they will be in for several years. A+ shrewd move on her part.

Do you think that, after yesterday's ruling on Stormy having to pay Trump's legal fees in the defamation suit, the people who donated to her crowdfunding legal effort are going to be happy about being indirect contributors to the Trump 2020 campaign?

Few will be smart enough to see it that way. The people who crowdfunded her are fueled by hate, not logic.

funny nobody wants to talk about this:

Simpson pleads fifth

Taking the Fifth just shows that something was done illegally in creating and using the Steele dossier.

I saw it. I figured me and three or four others would find it interesting, and the remainder would write it off as not having enough 'smoke'.

He also 'pled the First', which is...... novel...... to say the least.

It is also debatable whether, when coupled with the other appearances he has been to there, whether he hasnt waived the Fifth in that respect.

I'll disagree that taking the Fifth 'shows that something was done illegally'; but it certainly raises the spectre of it to a good degree.

(10-16-2018 05:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw it. I figured me and three or four others would find it interesting, and the remainder would write it off as not having enough 'smoke'.

He also 'pled the First', which is...... novel...... to say the least.

It is also debatable whether, when coupled with the other appearances he has been to there, whether he hasnt waived the Fifth in that respect.

I'll disagree that taking the Fifth 'shows that something was done illegally'; but it certainly raises the spectre of it to a good degree.

I guess more precisely, it shows he thinks he could get indicted for something.

If it is shown the Dossier was used improperly to start surveilance, does that mean all that follows from that, up to and including the Mueller investigation, could get thrown out as fruit from the poisoned tree?

(10-16-2018 06:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2018 05:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw it. I figured me and three or four others would find it interesting, and the remainder would write it off as not having enough 'smoke'.

He also 'pled the First', which is...... novel...... to say the least.

It is also debatable whether, when coupled with the other appearances he has been to there, whether he hasnt waived the Fifth in that respect.

I'll disagree that taking the Fifth 'shows that something was done illegally'; but it certainly raises the spectre of it to a good degree.

I guess more precisely, it shows he thinks he could get indicted for something.

If it is shown the Dossier was used improperly to start surveilance, does that mean all that follows from that, up to and including the Mueller investigation, could get thrown out as fruit from the poisoned tree?

Did you also notice that Carter Page is suing the DNC over the memo?

And yes, Simpson may very well have played the weasel word game ---- fun thing to do with the Feds......

(10-16-2018 07:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2018 06:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2018 05:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw it. I figured me and three or four others would find it interesting, and the remainder would write it off as not having enough 'smoke'.

He also 'pled the First', which is...... novel...... to say the least.

It is also debatable whether, when coupled with the other appearances he has been to there, whether he hasnt waived the Fifth in that respect.

I'll disagree that taking the Fifth 'shows that something was done illegally'; but it certainly raises the spectre of it to a good degree.

I guess more precisely, it shows he thinks he could get indicted for something.

If it is shown the Dossier was used improperly to start surveilance, does that mean all that follows from that, up to and including the Mueller investigation, could get thrown out as fruit from the poisoned tree?

Did you also notice that Carter Page is suing the DNC over the memo?

And yes, Simpson may very well have played the weasel word game ---- fun thing to do with the Feds......

Yes. Maybe this whole thing is about to unravel.

On to the Concord criminal charge -- the one where the Mueller team tried to keep the defendant from answering.

Quote:The company has asked U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich to throw out the claims, saying that Mueller’s office concocted a crime and that there’s no law against interfering in elections.

Quote:Special Counsel Robert Mueller was ordered by a judge to clarify his election meddling allegations against a Russian company ran by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of President Vladimir Putin.

A Washington federal judge on Thursday asked prosecutors whether she should assume they aren’t accusing Concord Management and Consulting LLC of violating U.S. laws pertaining to election expenditures and registering as a foreign agent.

Quote:“I’ll give you, Mr. Dubelier, that this is an unprecedented case,” U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich in Washington said Monday, addressing the Reed Smith partner representing Concord Management and Consulting in a Mueller case.

Apparently they arent being charged with FARA, nor with violating FEC expenditures. So now the fight is whether the Feds can actually name a crime that they committed.

Mueller ordered to clarify charges

Federal judge raises questions how Mueller III will be able to prove interference

Comment from the defense attorney:

Quote:"There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn’t," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office alleged a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have."

Interesting. I always wondered what the laws about "messing with an election" actually said.

There is the obvious, like voter intimidation and voter fraud, or electronically changing votes, none of which has been alleged in the 2016 election.

It appears the "messing" is confined to two areas - buying ads, which means that lots of PACS are "messing", and publishing the truth, which is usually expected from our free press and nobody else.. We don't want the truth if a Russian tells it.

I have always thought this furor was much ado over nothing. Ogf course, it used to be about collusion, before it came to be about messing.

I guess that if I am a citizen talking smack on the internet, or, even creating fake names to post with -- perfectly legit.

If A Canadian national who lives in Windsor, Ontario posts anti-Trump stuff, they are a poopy head who needs jail time.

But a US citizen residing in Windsor, Ontario doing the same thing is perfectly legit.

A Mexican national who lives/works in Harlingen, and posts anti-Cruz statements, they are also a poopy head who needs jail time.

That is seemingly the distinction Three Sticks is shooting for.

Bummer when a defendant is actually allowed to answer a criminal complaint and point out issues like that......

The problem is, that political speech, by anyone (citizen or not) is afforded probably the highest level of protection under the Constitution possible. *That* is the problem with not charging with a Foreign Agents beef or a FEC funds beef. But, hey, that is what I have been saying for close to two years now. Coupled with the notion of some that 'information' is a thing of value under FEC contribution issues, the dramatic (not to mention novel) expansion of Federal (maybe state) laws with this is kind of scary.

Not saying I support foreign intervention in the election landscape, but the response to cover what could be protected activity is really stunning to me. But I am sure the lack of smoke will be an issue for many. Go Resistance™!!!

(10-22-2018 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  .

A Mexican national who lives/works in Harlingen, and posts anti-Cruz statements, they are also a poopy head who needs jail time.

But in California, such a person, whether legally there or illegally, is allowed to vote - to actually vote!

Why is that not "meddling"?

If I had taken out ads in London newspapers either supporting or opposing Brexit (or both, as is the case with the FaceBook ads), is that meddling in an election? Especially if I am just echoing what British citizens are saying?

Are foreign nationals who fund political action here (Soros) meddling?

Went to vote. Long lines outside the courthouse.

Wasn't super bad in Fort Bend County but I've certainly seen it quieter. Am I right - is this the last year we have the option to vote straight party ticket at the ballot box? I thought I read they were doing away with that?

(10-22-2018 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Are foreign nationals who fund political action here (Soros) meddling?

No fan of the man, but Forbes says Soros is a US citizen.

(10-22-2018 12:28 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Wasn't super bad in Fort Bend County but I've certainly seen it quieter. Am I right - is this the last year we have the option to vote straight party ticket at the ballot box? I thought I read they were doing away with that?

[link=https://www.wacotrib.com/news/elections/november-midterm-to-be-texas-last-for-straight-ticket-voting/article_2c5998b9-0ea1-5647-b3c7-984db2c8e022.html] November midterm to be Texas' last for straight-ticket voting [/link]

Quote:A state law passed last year eliminates “one punch” ballots and goes into effect in September 2020, just in time for the next presidential election.

Homework.

(10-22-2018 12:28 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Wasn't super bad in Fort Bend County but I've certainly seen it quieter. Am I right - is this the last year we have the option to vote straight party ticket at the ballot box? I thought I read they were doing away with that?

Straight party voting will be eliminated starting in 2020, so this will be the last "big" election with the straight party option.