HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » EffieBlack » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 55 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Feb 3, 2007, 12:43 AM
Number of posts: 14,195

Journal Archives

Trump blasts "Deep State Tailor"


Trump blasts "deep state tailor" at White House.

"He was appointed by Obama," Trump claims, "like those judges."

Tailor is Trump's personal tailor, and says it was not his fault. "Someone substituted a bib from Red Lobster at the last minute, and gave him Barron's jacket. https://t.co/1qaj25dxFl

BREAKING: Trump transition team member indicted on child pornography charges


A key witness in former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian election interference has been indicted by federal officials on child pornography charges, according to court documents.

George Nader, who had a previous criminal record on such charges, was charged in federal court in Virginia, and is expected to make an initial court appearance in New York.

Nader played an unusual role as a kind of liaison between Trump supporters, Middle East leaders, and Russians interested in making contact with the incoming administration in early 2017.
Nader was convicted 28 years ago of transporting child pornography, a case in which he received a reduced sentence after influential figures argued privately to the court that he was playing a valuable role in national security affairs — trying to free U.S. hostages then held in Lebanon.

Don't buy the lie that Mueller said he believes it's unconstitutional to indict a sitting president

He didn't say that.
"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. "

He stated clearly and unequivocally that it's DOJ policy that it's unconstitutional to indict a sitting president. He offered nothing of his first view or subject

Claiming he said otherwise is a lie and is, unfortunately, being spread on DU for some reason.

We're being played. Don't fall for it!

What specifically do you expect Mueller to say in his testimony

that would influence or matter to you that would not be communicated in a transcript of his testimony?

Please be specific.

Note: I'm not asking for your opinions about how Mueller's testimony might influence someone else. This is a question directed to each of you. What do you expect that Mueller would say in his testimony that could influence or make a difference to you in any way that wouldn't influence or make a difference to you if you read it in a transcript?

On Day 2 of the Pelosi Mashdown of Trump, we suddenly get inundated with a stream

with a stream of breathless angry diatribes about Mueller's testimony.

I willingly joined in the conversations myself because some of the carrying on seemed so ridiculous and I wanted to counter it ... but now that I think about it, I just find it interesting.

Pelosi's detractors were right about one thing: She IS a lightning rod. And thank God, she is

And I’ll bet the red state Members who, even if they support impeachment, need some time and space to help their constituents catch up with the rest of us, are grateful that Nancy Pelosi is taking the incoming bolts for them.

That’s what a leader does. And Pelosi is doing it so well, she makes it look easy - so easy, in fac, that some people don’t even realize she’s doing it.

Oh, Donald ... Judge Ramos is calling (you out)

Douglas Letter, the lawyer for congressional Democrats, said the subpoenas were intended to elicit information on potential money laundering and financial fraud and that they were not overly expansive.

Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appeared to agree. “Lots of people do things, they hide assets, they create dummy corporations, they put their relatives in charge,” the judge said in court before he issued his ruling.

Judge Ramos said he agreed with Mr. Trump’s claim that turning over financial records to Congress could cause him and his family irreparable harm. But, he said, the merits of the congressional committees’ goals outweighed that harm.

After issuing his ruling, Judge Ramos said he thought it was unlikely that Mr. Trump and his family would win in a trial.

Oh, snap!

"The Judiciary branch is strong and WE. WILL. HOLD"

A few weeks ago, a dear old friend, a Republican-appointed federal judge, trying to console me during a moment of despair about the future of our country, said to me “The Judiciary branch is strong and will hold.” When I expressed skepticism, he leaned toward me, looked me dead in the eye, and said as firmly as he could without shouting: “We are strong and WE. WILL. HOLD.”

Today, thanks to Judge Mehta, I think he may be right ...

A modest request: Please do your research

It’s not a new thing here but it seems to be more prevalent lately that people are throwing around terms and concepts that they’ve read about somewhere on the internet but haven’t taken the time to actually learn about. As a lawyer, I notice it more when it deals with legal issues, but it’s certainly broader than that.

For example, lately some folk are complaining about (and actually mocking) the Democrats’ “strongly worded letters,” not realizing they are a legal necessity and demanding that Congress exercise its “inherent contempt” authority to throw people in jail immediately, without understanding exactly how this authority works and that it doesn’t permit immediate arrest and jail.

Such misconceptions wouldn’t be a big deal ordinarily, but when people who DO understand these issues try to explain it to them, some folk double down, argue and even get snarky - all the while further demonstrating their lack of knowledge about or even a cursory effort to research the topic.

This discussion board is a great place to engage and learn from each other. I’m constantly learning here. But it’s not helpful if people refuse to make any effort to learn what they’re talking about before they start talking about it, spread misinformation, and then argue and attack when anyone who knows the topic tries to help them better understand it.

I know I’ll likely take some incoming for having the temerity to say this - probably from some of the same folk who are doing what I’m talking about - but I hope people will seriously consider it and take some time to learn more about what they’re discussing, either by researching it before they bring it up or jump into a discussion, or by showing more respect to DUers who have more knowledge about a topic than they do. We all have something to learn about something from someone else.

Even if the Dems started impeachment tomorrow, that wouldn't satisfy some people

They will be second-guess, harp, snipe, blame, and nsist they know better than the people who are actually doing th work.

So I'm glad Pelosi, Nadler and their colleagues aren't falling for the "just open impeachment hearings and all will be well and right with the world" bait.

Because some people will never be satisfied since their sniping has little or.nothing to do with achieving the ends they claim and everything to do with trying to tear down Nancy Pelosi.

(Psst. It ain't gonna work cause Nancy's not skeerdayu)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 55 Next »