As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Mueller Investigation] Where there's smock, there's liar.

18283858788100

Posts

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Now I really want to file a FOIA to the Secret Service about any documents relevant to "Protectee commission of crimes, response to".

    It would never get approved but just seeing the dates would be hilarious/depressing.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Yeah, Trump could take a dump on the whitehouse lawn in front of a group of school children and then get one of them to wipe his ass with the american flag while he hit on their teacher and republicans would still make excuses for him.

    Like, the enduring legacy of the trump presidency is how the gop will void any pretense of ethical standards if it means they can squeeze a tiny bit more power out of the system.

    That's exactly what happened with Nixon. That there wasn't, at least from this current perspective, any real punishment has given them a history to be emboldened by.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    The Secret Service isn't law enforcement and I think explicitly do not monitor protectee behavior.

    Now if the Head of the FBI was sitting there, then I think you have yourself a question.

    The Secret Service are absolutely law enforcement, presidential security is just one detail they perform. His bodyguards are all also legit federal law enforcement officers.

    Edit: I don’t know if there’s any explicit policy not to monitor protectee behavior, including violent felonies. Just noting that the it is indeed a federal law enforcement agency, including duties outside protective detail. They’re federal cops, can arrest people, and as a general rule I would expect them to do so in the face of a murder.

    mcdermott on
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If trump literally murdered someone on camera, he would be arrested. Someone would probably sue to have him released and it would make it to SCOTUS. Meanwhile, he would be impeached and removed from office, and after removal he would be indicted, tried and convicted.

    SCOTUS would decide they didn't want top hear the case, but it wouldn't much matter, because Trump has already been sentenced for murder.

    The reason that the State Department and other organs of nation building do not institute the American model of government when nation building abroad (since at least WWII) is that the Latin American nations that did follow our model had a strong tendency to fall into dictatorship. The ability of a strong executive to simply abolish the other arms of government is an essential flaw in our constitutional model.

    So, we can feel safe saying that a hypothetical president who murdered an opponent on camera would be arrested and normality would ensue. The actual history of our governing model, however, suggests that said president would be just as likely to put on a military uniform, declare a state of emergency, and become President For Life.

    Phillishere on
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Secret Service isn't law enforcement and I think explicitly do not monitor protectee behavior.

    Now if the Head of the FBI was sitting there, then I think you have yourself a question.

    The Secret Service are absolutely law enforcement, presidential security is just one detail they perform. His bodyguards are all also legit federal law enforcement officers.

    The Secret Service is the primary enforcement body for counterfeit currency. Presidential protection is a secondary duty added after their creation.

    Hevach on
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Hevach wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Secret Service isn't law enforcement and I think explicitly do not monitor protectee behavior.

    Now if the Head of the FBI was sitting there, then I think you have yourself a question.

    The Secret Service are absolutely law enforcement, presidential security is just one detail they perform. His bodyguards are all also legit federal law enforcement officers.

    The Secret Service is the primary enforcement body for counterfeit currency. Presidential protection is a secondary duty added after their creation.

    What if Trump was involved in a counterfeiting scandal? What then?

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    We're off topic here in about five ways y'all

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Hevach wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Secret Service isn't law enforcement and I think explicitly do not monitor protectee behavior.

    Now if the Head of the FBI was sitting there, then I think you have yourself a question.

    The Secret Service are absolutely law enforcement, presidential security is just one detail they perform. His bodyguards are all also legit federal law enforcement officers.

    The Secret Service is the primary enforcement body for counterfeit currency. Presidential protection is a secondary duty added after their creation.

    Yea, my brain kicked in when I was read mcdermott. I guess my statement is that the protection wing isn't looking for crimes to arrest folks for over their protection duties. They definitely aren't with their protectee, that'd actively undermine their ability to protect them.

    Though I do expect there has been at least some discussion of what the fuck to do about witnessing that sort of thing. I'm curious if any of that was ever written down or if it was a strictly "only two people present" series of discussions.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • RhahRhah Registered User regular
    Wait, whatever you did before you became President is off the table? Isn't everything they hated about Obama (other than ACA) from before he was President? Acorn, birth certificate?

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Rhah wrote: »
    Wait, whatever you did before you became President is off the table? Isn't everything they hated about Obama (other than ACA) from before he was President? Acorn, birth certificate?

    IOKIYAR. Like the next time a dem is elected the GOP will immediately launch impeachment based on collusion with Russia.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Rhah wrote: »
    Wait, whatever you did before you became President is off the table? Isn't everything they hated about Obama (other than ACA) from before he was President? Acorn, birth certificate?

    IOKIYAR. Like the next time a dem is elected the GOP will immediately launch impeachment based on collusion with voters.

    Projection to cover the screen.

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Rhah wrote: »
    Wait, whatever you did before you became President is off the table? Isn't everything they hated about Obama (other than ACA) from before he was President? Acorn, birth certificate?

    He was black before he was President, yes

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Rhah wrote: »
    Wait, whatever you did before you became President is off the table? Isn't everything they hated about Obama (other than ACA) from before he was President? Acorn, birth certificate?

    And if Hillary had won I'm sure we'd never hear another word about email servers or Benghazi.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Reuters interviewed Trump.

    Reuters reporter:


    What? Isn't that contradictory?

  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Yes.

    He's rambling, looking for excuses.

  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Reuters interviewed Trump.

    Reuters reporter:


    What? Isn't that contradictory?

    So, at my work, we have giant flatscreen tvs that show call flow and information about the company on the bottom half of the screen, and then interesting facts and bits of the news on the top half, usually in short, bite sized sentences. Today, the way that algorithm pulling from Reuters noted it was "Trump Claims Hush Money paid to mistresses are not campaign contributions." Which was the best summation of the bullshit I had seen from a news source.

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Trump has managed to turn the Black out drunk vomiting under a streetlight-style Gish Gallop into an art form.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    never die wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Reuters interviewed Trump.

    Reuters reporter:


    What? Isn't that contradictory?

    So, at my work, we have giant flatscreen tvs that show call flow and information about the company on the bottom half of the screen, and then interesting facts and bits of the news on the top half, usually in short, bite sized sentences. Today, the way that algorithm pulling from Reuters noted it was "Trump Claims Hush Money paid to mistresses are not campaign contributions." Which was the best summation of the bullshit I had seen from a news source.

    Yes, that's the headlines we wanna see. The sleaze is just assume and the story is some arcane bullshit. The thing that sticks in the mind is "Trump pays hush money to mistress".

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    According to the anguished wails of several journalists, Michael Flynn’s lawyer has just filed his sentencing memo, but it isn’t loading.

    So expect new exciting details to pour over! Soon. Hopefully.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    It’s up! The 30 page memo from Flynn’s legal team asks that Flynn be granted probation since it was just a teeny little bit of treason.


    Natasha is a staff writer with The Atlantic and NBC News contributor.

    *edit* Replacing Natasha’s deleted tweet. Pretty sure that she and a bunch of others are worn out from frantically hitting refresh.

    Desktop Hippie on
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Edit: there’s a tweet there

    Captain Inertia on
  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    There supposed to be a tweet there?

    She deleted the first one because having finally managed to get the damn memo she accidentally said that it was from Cohen’s lawyers, not Flynn’s.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    There supposed to be a tweet there?

    She deleted the first one because having finally managed to get the damn memo she accidentally said that it was from Cohen’s lawyers, not Flynn’s.

    We know her pain

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    I won’t clog the thread but the reactions of everyone trying to download it while PACER was stalling was just priceless.

    Also spare a thought for Rachel Maddow, who pretty much ended up trying to download the damn thing and then read it while she was live on air.

    Meanwhile, as part of Flynn’s don’t-lock-me-up chant, his lawyers say that he has spent 62 hours assisting investigators and has turned over thousands of records from both of his companies, as well as electronic devices.


    Brad is with USA Today.

    Desktop Hippie on
  • EriktheVikingGamerEriktheVikingGamer Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    I won’t clog the thread but the reactions of everyone trying to download it while PACER was stalling was just priceless.

    Also spare a thought for Rachel Maddow, who pretty much ended up trying to download the damn thing and then read it while she was live on air.

    Meanwhile, as part of Flynn’s don’t-lock-me-up chant, his lawyers say that he has spent 62 hours assisting investigators and has turned over thousands of records from both of his companies, as well as electronic devices.

    Brad is with USA Today.


    "I did what I was legally obligated to do after I did a bunch of illegal shit. So, we cool?"

    EriktheVikingGamer on
    Steam - DailyFatigueBar
    FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    At least for me, if Flynn was instrumental in making the case against the Trumps, he probably deserves a lot of leniency.

    Edit. I just remembered he tried to arrange an illegal kidnapping of a political dissident for Turkey. For that part, he deserves the book thrown at him.

    Dark_Side on
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    At least for me, if Flynn was instrumental in making the case against the Trumps, he probably deserves a lot of leniency.

    Yeah. Sometimes, you gotta let Henry Hill retire to the suburbs.

  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    At least for me, if Flynn was instrumental in making the case against the Trumps, he probably deserves a lot of leniency.

    Edit. I just remembered he tried to arrange an illegal kidnapping of a political dissident for Turkey. For that part, he deserves the book thrown at him.

    I dunno if deserves is the word I would use, but I would agree that it is useful to signal that the people who flipped early (like Flynn and Papaddopoulos) and were cooperative get lesser sentences while those who don't flip and/or kind of flip but play games (like Manafort and Stone) will end up with the book thrown at them to encourage those on the edge to come out with hopes of lesser sentences.

    What Flynn deserves is to set in prison for a long time to pay for his crimes against society.

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Yeah, very good point. "Deserves" was a poor choice of words here.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Reuters interviewed Trump.

    Reuters reporter:


    What? Isn't that contradictory?

    Number one, it wasn't a campaign contribution.
    If it were, it's only civil.
    And even if it's only civil, there was no violation based on what we did.


    It was awesome.

  • OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    IOKIYAR

    It's depressing how much Trump is just a symptom and not a cause of this political climate

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    IOKIYAR

    It's depressing how much Trump is just a symptom and not a cause of this political climate

    He's the direct result of whatabout and both sides -ism.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    GRRR

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    I won’t clog the thread but the reactions of everyone trying to download it while PACER was stalling was just priceless.

    Also spare a thought for Rachel Maddow, who pretty much ended up trying to download the damn thing and then read it while she was live on air.

    Meanwhile, as part of Flynn’s don’t-lock-me-up chant, his lawyers say that he has spent 62 hours assisting investigators and has turned over thousands of records from both of his companies, as well as electronic devices.

    Brad is with USA Today.


    "I did what I was legally obligated to do after I did a bunch of illegal shit. So, we cool?"

    He was not legally obligated to cooperate. He was only obligated to cooperate on the understanding that he might be given a lower sentencing recommendation by the prosecution.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Why do papers like the Washington Examiner exist?

    Today they’re running an op/ed that opines this week’s filings related to Cohen and Trump are “unimportant” because Daniels and MacDougal are floozies and “Trump would have won regardless,” blah blah blah sore loser libs.


    The GOP, if they’re to continue existing in any substantial capacity, is going to have to take a real look at this pervasive crisis of moral bankruptcy within their ranks.

    They won’t, but hey ho.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    They exist because rich Republicans operate them at a loss to get tax cuts/white supremacy.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    They exist because rich Republicans operate them at a loss to get tax cuts/white supremacy.

    Which is an improvement over the past, when they operated them to get all that plus war with Spain.

    More seriously, take a look at how the British tabloids have shaped the Brexit debate. That sort of power is nice to have.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    The Washington Times is owned by a cult. So there's also that shit.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Bloomberg is liveblogging Cohen's sentencing, for those interested.

    Edit: Amusing point:
    There are so many prosecutors present from both teams that the judge's clerks had to bring extra chairs.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Reuters interviewed Trump.

    Reuters reporter:


    What? Isn't that contradictory?

    Not to play devils advocate here, but what exactly is the charge here? That these payments are considered campaign contributions and therefore illegal?

This discussion has been closed.