Just out of curiosity, why would Ms. Clifford choose to have an affair with Trump? Was she enamored with his rugged, handsome features or his physique? Her reasons are her own, of course, but if I were female he would not be my first choice.
There's another potentially baffling question which I think could be connected to this, i.e. why would Trump pay this woman off rather than just contradict and ridicule her like he's done with a number of other women? It doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility that someone wanting to have sex with a porn star would also be interested in filming the encounter ...
Apparently, one of Turmp's lawyers suggested at some point last year that Manafort and Flynn could receive pardons. This news story is neither relevant nor newsworthy, unless it is somehow illegal to propose pardoning someone (which it isn't). The fact that neither one actually received a pardon makes this another case of "not only is there no fire, there isn't even any smoke". Trump doesn't have to fire Mueller; instead, he could just start handing out pardons every time someone gets indicted for something, which would have the net effect of making all of the Mueller Team's efforts null and void. Sure, they can try to file State charges but you can't file a State charge against someone in New York (chosen at random) if the crime did not happen in New York State. Besides, the charges which have actually been made are for things like "lying to Federal investigators", "bank fraud", and "conspiracy to commit bank fraud", all of which are Federal charges and thus pardonable.
In the long run, the Mueller Investigation is not going to nail Trump over allegations that his campaign colluded with Russian operatives to rig or fix the outcome of the election. Instead, what will actually bring Trump to the risk of indictment and/or impeachment will be the lawsuit over the payments foreign officials have made to the Trump International Hotel because those payments might violate the emoluments clause...even though, technically, it should be referenced under the Title of Nobility Clause. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Trump's way out here, though, would be for Congress to approve those payments. What are the odds that a Republican majority Congress will make such an approval, though?
*************
Just out of curiosity, why would Ms. Clifford choose to have an affair with Trump? Was she enamored with his rugged, handsome features or his physique? Her reasons are her own, of course, but if I were female he would not be my first choice.
The entire first part of this post seems to make the argument that a President is effectively immune from consequences in ANY instance where an underling could turn on them as a witness because of the power of the pardon. If that's the country everyone wants to live in, enjoy autocracy going forward.
"The entire first part of this post seems to make the argument that a President is effectively immune from consequences in ANY instance where an underling could turn on them as a witness because of the power of the pardon. If that's the country everyone wants to live in, enjoy autocracy going forward."
The president has always had this power. It was assigned to the chief executive by law. Kings also have this power and apparently, for whatever reason, the framers thought it was a good idea to assign this power to the president.
The recourse for abuses of this power is impeachment. I suppose the power of pardon could be legislated out of existence (but SCOTUS could find it unconstitutional to take away).
"The entire first part of this post seems to make the argument that a President is effectively immune from consequences in ANY instance where an underling could turn on them as a witness because of the power of the pardon. If that's the country everyone wants to live in, enjoy autocracy going forward."
The president has always had this power. It was assigned to the chief executive by law. Kings also have this power and apparently, for whatever reason, the framers thought it was a good idea to assign this power to the president.
The recourse for abuses of this power is impeachment. I suppose the power of pardon could be legislated out of existence (but SCOTUS could find it unconstitutional to take away).
I realize the pardon power is absolute. What's shocking is that otherwise reasonable people seem to have no issue at all with a President potentially innoculating himself from legal jeopardy through using it.
I wouldn't recommend booinyoureyes working for Trump. It's a treacherous dog eat dog world there where your coworkers are trying to undermine you (like Trumps political appointees did to David Shulkin) . Shulkin now is able to say "the environment in Washington has turned so toxic, chaotic, disrespectful and subversive". The Trump effect.
So you would have a high chance of getting fired. Even if you don't get fired, your job prospects after he is gone are worse because people aren't hiring Trump people.
All that being said, if you can get Trump to nominate you for a judgeship you'd be set. Can't be fired and never need another job. Experience is unnecessary for the position.
I realize the pardon power is absolute. What's shocking is that otherwise reasonable people seem to have no issue at all with a President potentially innoculating himself from legal jeopardy through using it.
How do you conclude that I have no issue with Trump using pardons in this manner? Pardons should be used for extenuating circumstances only or for cases where the system might have worked as designed but the results are less than desirable. I am not suggesting that he should start handing out pardons to everyone, only that it would be a legal option for him to do so as a way of essentially ignoring the Mueller investigation while also avoiding the disaster that trying to fire him would cause. This isn't the first time I have mentioned it, either.
Then again, for all of Trump's bragging the reality of the situation is that I am significantly smarter than he is--smart enough *not* to have an affair with a porn star, that's for certain.
I would take a job in Trump's Administration if and only if three conditions were met: 1) the pay is sufficient to get me to move to Washington, D. C. while maintaining the residence here (the teens are still in school), 2) my employment contract would spell out the specific conditions under which I may be fired (and that if I am fired for any other reason I would receive a very generous severance package), and 3) I stipulate what those conditions are--this prevents me from being fired by Trump's whim. If they did meet all 3 of those conditions, I would probably be responsible for some very intelligent ways to implement some very disastrous policy positions--I would have to live with that for the rest of my life, no doubt. Not sure it would be worth it.
*************
The Fiscal Board in control of Puerto Rico's economy (thanks, Obama--you slapped every Puerto Rican citizen in the face with that one) is imposing new austerity measures, specifically cuts to the pension system. Governor Roselló is trying to fight back against those changes but, truthfully, there really isn't much he can do. Once again, I urge Congress to make Puerto Rico the 51st State, which will also allow them to more easily obtain the assistance they still need because of Maria.
Sure, they can try to file State charges but you can't file a State charge against someone in New York (chosen at random) if the crime did not happen in New York State. Besides, the charges which have actually been made are for things like "lying to Federal investigators", "bank fraud", and "conspiracy to commit bank fraud", all of which are Federal charges and thus pardonable.
A big focus of the investigation has been money laundering via the Trump properties, which would make these a NY state issue. In addition, it's been noted that Mueller has been undercharging the various players, hedging his bets so he can defer charges to NY.
So, let's cover this again: a presidential pardon is an admission of guilt and strips the pardonee of their Fifth Amendment protections, meaning they can be compelled to testify against Trump. And no, Trump can not pardon himself. After everything we've seen of Trump, I would put the odds of him showing loyalty to another person and thereby exposing himself to increased risk via a pardon as zero.
Another aspect is that Mueller has filed a number of sealed indictments; it's possible that Trump may be named a co-conspirator in them. The power of pardon does not extend to criminal co-conspirators, meaning Trump could not pardon them.
Most people forget that accepting a pardon includes an admission of guilt. Worst-case scenario: we have a Nixon/Ford scenario where the former VP (now POTUS) pardons his former boss.
Most people forget that accepting a pardon includes an admission of guilt. Worst-case scenario: we have a Nixon/Ford scenario where the former VP (now POTUS) pardons his former boss.
Joe Arpaio doesn't accept that. When told that during an interview he was like no it doesn't mean that that's up to the courts. So Trump and crooks he pardons will just deny reality. Call it fake news.
Hey it worked for that Navy guy who took pictures on a nuclear sub. Trump pardoned him because he was on Fox and Friends. Trump apparently has no concern about unauthorized disclosure of classified information. So uh what's all that shit about Hillarys email about then?
Joe doesn't have to accept it but he definitely has to live with it--the SCOTUS already ruled that a pardon equates to an admission of guilt.
Austin police chief Brian Manley is now classifying Mr. Conditt as a domestic terrorist. Caveat: that isn't an official classification, only his opinion in his official capacity as Chief of Police. Despite blog posts he made back in 2012, to date there is still no clear motive for the bombings other than something like "can I get away with it?" or "I want to become famous".
Joe doesn't have to accept it but he definitely has to live with it--the SCOTUS already ruled that a pardon equates to an admission of guilt.
Austin police chief Brian Manley is now classifying Mr. Conditt as a domestic terrorist. Caveat: that isn't an official classification, only his opinion in his official capacity as Chief of Police. Despite blog posts he made back in 2012, to date there is still no clear motive for the bombings other than something like "can I get away with it?" or "I want to become famous".
It shouldn't be controversial to call him a terrorist. He bombed people. He must have been aware that people were terrorfied, everybody in Austin was talking about it in fear. And he kept doing it so it sure seems like he tried to cause more terror.
It isn't controversial to *me*--I already classify his actions as "domestic terrorism". The official definition currently being used is:
Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
Let's see--delivering explosive devices to people's homes and/or leaving them on the side of the road certainly satisfies part A, and his actions can easily be seen to satisfy part Bi, and is it obvious that his actions all satisfy part C. Conclusion: domestic terrorism.
Joe doesn't have to accept it but he definitely has to live with it--the SCOTUS already ruled that a pardon equates to an admission of guilt.
Austin police chief Brian Manley is now classifying Mr. Conditt as a domestic terrorist. Caveat: that isn't an official classification, only his opinion in his official capacity as Chief of Police. Despite blog posts he made back in 2012, to date there is still no clear motive for the bombings other than something like "can I get away with it?" or "I want to become famous".
It shouldn't be controversial to call him a terrorist. He bombed people. He must have been aware that people were terrorfied. And he kept doing it sure seems like he tried to cause more terror.
If there was no political motive, he isn’t a terrorist.
True. The traditional definition of terrorism, as well as the Patriot Act definition cited above, requires that the act is intended to effect a political outcome or exert some political influence. I think that's a good definition; it separates political actors from random psychopaths with no ideology behind them.
If he's not charged with perpetrating an act of terrorism, the bomber could still be charged with numerous counts of attempted murder and probably a bunch of other related crimes.
If there was no political motive, he isn’t a terrorist.
That depends on your definition of terrorism - using the one @Mathsorcerer referenced above it would qualify. This article gives a bit of background to the confusing world of defining terrorism.
If there was no political motive, he isn’t a terrorist.
That depends on your definition of terrorism - using the one @Mathsorcerer referenced above it would qualify. This article gives a bit of background to the confusing world of defining terrorism.
Bruce Hoffman's book as mentioned in the article above, Inside Terrorism is an excellent read on the subject. I referred to it many a time while studying the psychological aspects of terrorism as regards there willingness to negotiate, as well as to get a better understanding of how the terrorist mind thinks. There is indeed much that has changed with the term over the years. It is interesting to me how two groups using similar methods but different labels can be thought of in two different ways. Ex. Freedom Fighters (more positive) vs International Terrorists more negative due to the word) . The very word itself implies a moral judgement and hence can be used by both terrorist of all types, as well as governments and news agencies to paint the picture they want to. Even terrorists themselves make use of this labeling by the very name they give themselves, often hoping to be seen in a better light by the people around them.
In the definition I cited above the key part will be section B--if a set of actions satisfies either i *or* ii *or* iii then it could meet A, B, and C and fully qualify as "terrorism". In my opinion, his actions satisfy subsection i. The final, official, determination will be up to investigators and might take several more weeks. They don't have to rush anything--the suspect is already dead and no co-conspirators or copycats have surfaced...as far as I know.
The definition is indeed something of a cop out. Terrorists have to be for a political or idealogical reason. Well I'm sure he had ideas we just don't understand and he hasn't made them known so he's a terrorist. Everyone has their own ideology.
I wonder why the powers that be added that caveat to the definition. I guess maybe so cops aren't called terrorists or something like that. Can't have one of the good guys be terrorists.
Just out of curiosity, why would Ms. Clifford choose to have an affair with Trump? Was she enamored with his rugged, handsome features or his physique? Her reasons are her own, of course, but if I were female he would not be my first choice.
I read this somewhere. She said it was an attempt to get on Celebrity Apprentice and break into mainstream reality TV. She's said several times that, to her, it was just business.
Just out of curiosity, why would Ms. Clifford choose to have an affair with Trump? Was she enamored with his rugged, handsome features or his physique? Her reasons are her own, of course, but if I were female he would not be my first choice.
I read this somewhere. She said it was an attempt to get on Celebrity Apprentice and break into mainstream reality TV. She's said several times that, to her, it was just business.
For some reason rich old white men can get trophy wifes. Like Melania Trump who was a 35 year old model before marrying 52 year old Donald Trump.
It's not for everyone but it's a good gig if you are up to it, just put up with some old rich jerk for a couple of years, when they die you get more money than you would ever earn yourself.
Jeff Sessions in a note to Republican senior leadership (so you know it's a partisan attack) said he has picked U.S. Attorney John Huber to partner with the FBI IG (who recently recommended the firing of McCabe) to look into Hillary Clinton's emails (yes of course) and FBI decisions in 2016 about Hillary Clinton's emails.
He says there's no need to appoint a special council (for now) but that it would take extraordinary circumstances to do so. Then he said that Trump's firings of former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe counted as extraordinary circumstances. Jeff Sessions said these acts, as well as the demotions and reassignments of multiple senior FBI officials over the past year were the definition of “extraordinary circumstances.” So he's going to appoint a second special council, just not yet.
So when?
My guess is closer to November. Maybe August-September. Just make some fake news about Hillary Clinton, it'll play great on Fox and Friends. Lock her up was a campaign promise right? He'd love to pretend he kept one promise. At any rate they are probably hoping that a good muckraking of irrelevant Hillary Clinton close the the midterms might give Republicans reasons to hate again and forget how corrupt and awful the Trump administration has been. It might give State Republicans cover to pull more shenanigans like we are seeing in Pennsylvania and other states, and you know suppress votes, that sort of thing.
Yep, nothing like a good Hillary Clinton muckracking to get Republicans some seats in 2018, right Jeff? That's got to be where this is going.
The justice department is on it's way to be Trump's Gestapo.
He isn't going to appoint another special counsel, certainly not now and probably not later in the year, either. This is just talk to stir the pot and see who gets caught off-balance.
*************
I would urge the Palestinians to quit testing the patience of the IDF. I know you all feel that your "March for Return" is a good thing and I, myself, wish that the hard-liners in the Knesset would quit building settlements on land which should still be under your control, but if you continue to test the border of the Gaza Strip my concern is that the situation will escalate out of control and things will end very badly for you. They might think that seeing several hundred "martyrs" on the evening news will galvanize support for their cause from the international community but it won't. Even your own Arab neighbors have never really given you their full support so why would you think that anyone else would, either?
Unfortunately, in that overall conflict the Palestinians lost. They need to learn to accept their defeat with dignity and move on from it, not continue to dwell on it and let it fester. The Nakba was 70 years ago--if you don't let it go now then your obsession over it will continue to destroy only Palestinian lives. If you don't believe me, then just look at all the people who wasted their lives trying to relive or recapture the Antebellum Old South--at first they were simply pathetic, tragic figures but they eventually turned into creepy, fringe people with whom no one wanted to associate.
He isn't going to appoint another special counsel, certainly not now and probably not later in the year, either. This is just talk to stir the pot and see who gets caught off-balance.
*************
I believe he will and before November midterms let's revisit this and see who was right. He's laid the groundwork already by hiring Conservative U.S. Attorney John Huber from Utah to "help" the FBI IG find something now. He's just waiting for the right time to announce the second special counsel against hillary clinton's emails. Probably will be on a Friday closer to the midterms for maximum press coverage over the weekend because that's the important thing.
I would urge the Palestinians to quit testing the patience of the IDF. I know you all feel that your "March for Return" is a good thing and I, myself, wish that the hard-liners in the Knesset would quit building settlements on land which should still be under your control, but if you continue to test the border of the Gaza Strip my concern is that the situation will escalate out of control and things will end very badly for you. They might think that seeing several hundred "martyrs" on the evening news will galvanize support for their cause from the international community but it won't. Even your own Arab neighbors have never really given you their full support so why would you think that anyone else would, either?
I also sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, but the PLO and especially have been placing their faith in a militarist solution for far too long. Israel is simply flat-out more powerful than Palestine, and indeed the greater Arab and Persian world, in every dimension. For decades on end, Israel has won every single fight, and it has only gotten stronger since then. Even if you put aside the ethical problems with, well, terrorism, the fact of the matter is that it simply hasn't accomplished anything in the past 70 years.
Hamas has been banking on the assumption that they can earn international support by encouraging and then calling out Israeli war crimes. Thing is, the Palestinians already enjoy the sympathy of the rest of the Middle East and much of Europe (people love underdog stories), but none of the Palestinians' sympathizers have seen any reason to actually intervene on their behalf. People from Portugal to Pakistan will criticize Israel and call for Palestinian independence, but no one is going to stick their necks out by trying to force Israel into establishing an independent Palestine. Even if any of these countries were willing to jeopardize their own safety by joining a coalition against Israel, the U.S. is always there to crush any force that poses a serious threat to Israel.
Right or wrong, the objective reality of the situation is that an independent Palestine will only exist when Israel, and only Israel, decides that it's okay. After all, the only progress in Palestinian liberation that has ever happened was Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
Right or wrong, the objective reality of the situation is that an independent Palestine will only exist when Israel, and only Israel, decides that it's okay. After all, the only progress in Palestinian liberation that has ever happened was Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
I often have good advice for Israel, just like I often have good advice for political parties or individual politicians. Unfortunately, just like with those parties and politicians, Israel never listens to me, either. *shrug*
I did see another story where some Christians from Gaza are not going to be allowed access to the Temple Mount area over this very important holiday weekend because of security concerns. Even if I were inclined in that manner I still would never undertake a pilgrimage to Israel--too much risk, too much hassle.
Even if I were inclined in that manner I still would never undertake a pilgrimage to Israel--too much risk, too much hassle.
Risk? The intentional homicide rate in Israel is consistently much lower than in the U.S. You'd probably be far safer in Jerusalem than in, say, Houston.
He isn't going to appoint another special counsel, certainly not now and probably not later in the year, either. This is just talk to stir the pot and see who gets caught off-balance.
*************
I would urge the Palestinians to quit testing the patience of the IDF. I know you all feel that your "March for Return" is a good thing and I, myself, wish that the hard-liners in the Knesset would quit building settlements on land which should still be under your control, but if you continue to test the border of the Gaza Strip my concern is that the situation will escalate out of control and things will end very badly for you. They might think that seeing several hundred "martyrs" on the evening news will galvanize support for their cause from the international community but it won't. Even your own Arab neighbors have never really given you their full support so why would you think that anyone else would, either?
Unfortunately, in that overall conflict the Palestinians lost. They need to learn to accept their defeat with dignity and move on from it, not continue to dwell on it and let it fester. The Nakba was 70 years ago--if you don't let it go now then your obsession over it will continue to destroy only Palestinian lives. If you don't believe me, then just look at all the people who wasted their lives trying to relive or recapture the Antebellum Old South--at first they were simply pathetic, tragic figures but they eventually turned into creepy, fringe people with whom no one wanted to associate.
Nothing says you have the moral upper-hand in a dispute by opening up on protesters armed with stones with TANK FIRE, as was reported in Reuters. As usual, the "fight" almost always has casualties on only one side, and is more akin to a kid burning ants with a magnifying glass. But nothing distracts from Netanyahu's corruption problems like a handful of dead Palestinians.
I think this is one of those cases where the Palestinians view themselves as freedom fighters, and Israel and many others view them as terrorist with all the bad baggage that word entails. I have always personally thought Israel tends to go a little too far at times because of the support from Big Brother US watching out for them, and everyone knows it. Unfortunately, when a group realizes that nothing else has worked in the past and probably won't in the future, the only logical (to them) next step is to use terrorist tactics and violence. It doesn't they are unintelligent and uneducated, it just means they have reached there breaking point. It does not help when Israel goes in and builds on disputed land without regard for how that may escalate the situation.
The "moral upper hand" is not a consideration here. If you have hide armor, an axe, and a shield but I have a laser rifle then I win, every time. It doesn't matter whether I am right or not--if you fight me under those circumstances you lose.
There are already 12 dead the last time I checked. I don't want that to become 120 or 1,200.
Yeah, I don't look at the moral point so much as just trying to put myself into the minds of each group. If I felt strongly enough about a situation, and a had the a strong (and long dated history) religious conviction to boot, my own life would most likely not play into the facing death due to superior forces or weaponry. Trump thinking he can just go in and make people understand is pretty short sighted, esp. now that he has shown more support to Israel. It kinda puts him in an untrustworthy position in the eyes of the Palastinians (I think anyway). It just seems like it has gotten to the point where a life for a strongly held cause is worth it to some, more often than not. For the record I don't think it will work, but I can understand why someone would be willling to go up against such odds with no chance of winning the overall fight. I think it is always a little harder to understand why groups feel as they do when not in the same situations ourselves (myself), but not impossible.
And yes less death is always better, but the situation has lasted for so long now, unfortunately it is much harder to convince people otherwise, on any side, and that is disheartening to see.
Comments
*************
Just out of curiosity, why would Ms. Clifford choose to have an affair with Trump? Was she enamored with his rugged, handsome features or his physique? Her reasons are her own, of course, but if I were female he would not be my first choice.
The entire first part of this post seems to make the argument that a President is effectively immune from consequences in ANY instance where an underling could turn on them as a witness because of the power of the pardon. If that's the country everyone wants to live in, enjoy autocracy going forward.
"The entire first part of this post seems to make the argument that a President is effectively immune from consequences in ANY instance where an underling could turn on them as a witness because of the power of the pardon. If that's the country everyone wants to live in, enjoy autocracy going forward."
The president has always had this power. It was assigned to the chief executive by law. Kings also have this power and apparently, for whatever reason, the framers thought it was a good idea to assign this power to the president.
The recourse for abuses of this power is impeachment. I suppose the power of pardon could be legislated out of existence (but SCOTUS could find it unconstitutional to take away).
The president has always had this power. It was assigned to the chief executive by law. Kings also have this power and apparently, for whatever reason, the framers thought it was a good idea to assign this power to the president.
The recourse for abuses of this power is impeachment. I suppose the power of pardon could be legislated out of existence (but SCOTUS could find it unconstitutional to take away).
I realize the pardon power is absolute. What's shocking is that otherwise reasonable people seem to have no issue at all with a President potentially innoculating himself from legal jeopardy through using it.
Shulkin now is able to say "the environment in Washington has turned so toxic, chaotic, disrespectful and subversive". The Trump effect.
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/03/29/david-shulkin-responds-firing-491272
So you would have a high chance of getting fired. Even if you don't get fired, your job prospects after he is gone are worse because people aren't hiring Trump people.
All that being said, if you can get Trump to nominate you for a judgeship you'd be set. Can't be fired and never need another job. Experience is unnecessary for the position.
Then again, for all of Trump's bragging the reality of the situation is that I am significantly smarter than he is--smart enough *not* to have an affair with a porn star, that's for certain.
I would take a job in Trump's Administration if and only if three conditions were met: 1) the pay is sufficient to get me to move to Washington, D. C. while maintaining the residence here (the teens are still in school), 2) my employment contract would spell out the specific conditions under which I may be fired (and that if I am fired for any other reason I would receive a very generous severance package), and 3) I stipulate what those conditions are--this prevents me from being fired by Trump's whim. If they did meet all 3 of those conditions, I would probably be responsible for some very intelligent ways to implement some very disastrous policy positions--I would have to live with that for the rest of my life, no doubt. Not sure it would be worth it.
*************
The Fiscal Board in control of Puerto Rico's economy (thanks, Obama--you slapped every Puerto Rican citizen in the face with that one) is imposing new austerity measures, specifically cuts to the pension system. Governor Roselló is trying to fight back against those changes but, truthfully, there really isn't much he can do. Once again, I urge Congress to make Puerto Rico the 51st State, which will also allow them to more easily obtain the assistance they still need because of Maria.
So, let's cover this again: a presidential pardon is an admission of guilt and strips the pardonee of their Fifth Amendment protections, meaning they can be compelled to testify against Trump. And no, Trump can not pardon himself. After everything we've seen of Trump, I would put the odds of him showing loyalty to another person and thereby exposing himself to increased risk via a pardon as zero.
Another aspect is that Mueller has filed a number of sealed indictments; it's possible that Trump may be named a co-conspirator in them. The power of pardon does not extend to criminal co-conspirators, meaning Trump could not pardon them.
http://www.newsweek.com/joe-arpaio-found-out-admitted-guilt-trump-pardon-live-tv-781824
Convicted child molester, statutory rapist and former Subway pitchman Jared Fogel has named Trump in his pitch to get put of jail.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/397822/jared-fogle-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-get-out-of-prison/
Hey it worked for that Navy guy who took pictures on a nuclear sub. Trump pardoned him because he was on Fox and Friends. Trump apparently has no concern about unauthorized disclosure of classified information. So uh what's all that shit about Hillarys email about then?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/377774-navy-sailor-pardoned-by-trump-had-pleaded-case-on-fox-and-friends
Austin police chief Brian Manley is now classifying Mr. Conditt as a domestic terrorist. Caveat: that isn't an official classification, only his opinion in his official capacity as Chief of Police. Despite blog posts he made back in 2012, to date there is still no clear motive for the bombings other than something like "can I get away with it?" or "I want to become famous".
If he's not charged with perpetrating an act of terrorism, the bomber could still be charged with numerous counts of attempted murder and probably a bunch of other related crimes.
I wonder why the powers that be added that caveat to the definition. I guess maybe so cops aren't called terrorists or something like that. Can't have one of the good guys be terrorists.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2116380/melania-trump-donald-wife-where-from-age-first-lady/
Anna Nicole Smith was a 26 year old model when she married an 89 year old billionaire J. Howard Marshall.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/01/30/judge-in-decades-old-anna-nicole-smith-case-announces-hes-had-enough/
It's not for everyone but it's a good gig if you are up to it, just put up with some old rich jerk for a couple of years, when they die you get more money than you would ever earn yourself.
He says there's no need to appoint a special council (for now) but that it would take extraordinary circumstances to do so. Then he said that Trump's firings of former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe counted as extraordinary circumstances. Jeff Sessions said these acts, as well as the demotions and reassignments of multiple senior FBI officials over the past year were the definition of “extraordinary circumstances.” So he's going to appoint a second special council, just not yet.
So when?
My guess is closer to November. Maybe August-September. Just make some fake news about Hillary Clinton, it'll play great on Fox and Friends. Lock her up was a campaign promise right? He'd love to pretend he kept one promise. At any rate they are probably hoping that a good muckraking of irrelevant Hillary Clinton close the the midterms might give Republicans reasons to hate again and forget how corrupt and awful the Trump administration has been. It might give State Republicans cover to pull more shenanigans like we are seeing in Pennsylvania and other states, and you know suppress votes, that sort of thing.
Yep, nothing like a good Hillary Clinton muckracking to get Republicans some seats in 2018, right Jeff? That's got to be where this is going.
The justice department is on it's way to be Trump's Gestapo.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/29/sessions-prosecutor-fbi-2016-492352
*************
I would urge the Palestinians to quit testing the patience of the IDF. I know you all feel that your "March for Return" is a good thing and I, myself, wish that the hard-liners in the Knesset would quit building settlements on land which should still be under your control, but if you continue to test the border of the Gaza Strip my concern is that the situation will escalate out of control and things will end very badly for you. They might think that seeing several hundred "martyrs" on the evening news will galvanize support for their cause from the international community but it won't. Even your own Arab neighbors have never really given you their full support so why would you think that anyone else would, either?
Unfortunately, in that overall conflict the Palestinians lost. They need to learn to accept their defeat with dignity and move on from it, not continue to dwell on it and let it fester. The Nakba was 70 years ago--if you don't let it go now then your obsession over it will continue to destroy only Palestinian lives. If you don't believe me, then just look at all the people who wasted their lives trying to relive or recapture the Antebellum Old South--at first they were simply pathetic, tragic figures but they eventually turned into creepy, fringe people with whom no one wanted to associate.
Hamas has been banking on the assumption that they can earn international support by encouraging and then calling out Israeli war crimes. Thing is, the Palestinians already enjoy the sympathy of the rest of the Middle East and much of Europe (people love underdog stories), but none of the Palestinians' sympathizers have seen any reason to actually intervene on their behalf. People from Portugal to Pakistan will criticize Israel and call for Palestinian independence, but no one is going to stick their necks out by trying to force Israel into establishing an independent Palestine. Even if any of these countries were willing to jeopardize their own safety by joining a coalition against Israel, the U.S. is always there to crush any force that poses a serious threat to Israel.
Right or wrong, the objective reality of the situation is that an independent Palestine will only exist when Israel, and only Israel, decides that it's okay. After all, the only progress in Palestinian liberation that has ever happened was Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
I did see another story where some Christians from Gaza are not going to be allowed access to the Temple Mount area over this very important holiday weekend because of security concerns. Even if I were inclined in that manner I still would never undertake a pilgrimage to Israel--too much risk, too much hassle.
Unfortunately, when a group realizes that nothing else has worked in the past and probably won't in the future, the only logical (to them) next step is to use terrorist tactics and violence. It doesn't they are unintelligent and uneducated, it just means they have reached there breaking point.
It does not help when Israel goes in and builds on disputed land without regard for how that may escalate the situation.
There are already 12 dead the last time I checked. I don't want that to become 120 or 1,200.
Trump thinking he can just go in and make people understand is pretty short sighted, esp. now that he has shown more support to Israel. It kinda puts him in an untrustworthy position in the eyes of the Palastinians (I think anyway).
It just seems like it has gotten to the point where a life for a strongly held cause is worth it to some, more often than not. For the record I don't think it will work, but I can understand why someone would be willling to go up against such odds with no chance of winning the overall fight.
I think it is always a little harder to understand why groups feel as they do when not in the same situations ourselves (myself), but not impossible.
And yes less death is always better, but the situation has lasted for so long now, unfortunately it is much harder to convince people otherwise, on any side, and that is disheartening to see.