HEM: Semi-Regular Observations
-
Terrorists like to recruit followers with falsehoods and assertions that are impossible to keep/prove (1000 virgins for the martyrs). They prey on minds that are receptive for something intriguing and exciting and primed for reinforcement of beliefs, the seeds of which were planted when they were young and susceptible.
I am not sure what Adam Jones’ motivation is/was, but his tactics seem eerily similar.
Obviously the owners of the platforms felt he crossed a line.
I think the interesting question is, where is that line that leads to a ban? When Al-Qaeda crossed it, there wasn’t as much uproar. But I would like to think that it’s in everyone’s best interest to know what that line is (for Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, etc.) and how it’s defined, so that it is consistently enforced.
It would lead to a healthier discussion about whether the line is too lenient or too strict and in what ways… I’m sure the arguments would be just a passionate, but that’s a more healthy debate rather than arguing about act made in apparent solidarity but without revealing the rationale or logic. For instance, did they all use the same criteria? Did they all decide to ban because of the same concern or violation, or did they each do it for a different reason?
-
Guess I’m a racist. I can’t stand stupid people.
-
@bskeet It certainly would be healthier to have that debate. I think thats where our mainstream news corps have utterly failed us. That would be an interesting, non-partisan and viable talking point to engage the viewing audience with. Instead, we get divisive entrenched garbage that keeps us locked in a partisan war.
We are a nation steered by ratings. Our tyranny of the majority listens to celebrities.
-
@HighEliteMajor I’ve been saying for years the left has fascist tendencies as they curtail speech on campuses. When Condoleeza Rice is banned from giving a commencement address at Rutgers, what else is it than fascism? The somewhat silly bakery debate has fascist tendencies. If a businessperson wants to exercise his religious beliefs that way, why should he be forced to go against what he believes? I could go on and on.
-
I think there is this thought that somehow American laws and rights transcend our borders and is the law of all nations. The thought being is a non citizen has the same rights as an American and Americans would be treated as non citizens??? Thereby creating this mass hysteria that anybody that is off kilter most be silenced and their platform taking away. Hence Adam Jones is compared to terrorist, even though he has never preached violence. . Which in theory would be the right and just thing to do. However as we are seeing in America’s two party system. Their is a big push by the DNC and liberals to shut up opposing views, without even having a debate. So it raises a big question and extreme problems. What if someone is silenced merely because they have a differing view? That doesn’t fit Liberal and DNC agenda. Will they be silenced too?
There was a NBA basketball player that stated he believed the world was flat. Yet his platform wasn’t taking away. He wasn’t kicked off Facebook, Google, Apple, and so on. Even though he was clearly using the media platform and his status in the NBA to preach his beliefs. So why the different punishment. Because one is preaching a political view and the other isn’t. So if one toes that DNC line they can say and belief whatever they want. Cross that DNC line and you will be silenced. Not sure that is freedom of speech?
It’s been my experience that when a person/group resorts to name calling. Any chance of comprise or a healthy debate is lost, and is replaced with harsh feelings. Just a thought.
-
@DoubleDD The difference btwn flatearthers and Alex Jones is that Alex Jones deliberately used these platforms to incite hatred and violence (unless you got some seriously aggro alt-alt-flatearthers in mind)
Over the years, I have frequently heard from the right that we should allow businesses to do whats best for business, even when large numbers of people oppose the companies’ actions. Think gun companies, Walmart, etc.
It is interesting that in this case the right does not want to allow companies like Facebook and Twitter to do what they want to do, even though they believe that their actions are best for their businesses.
Facebook has been under all sorts of fire for their impact in mob mentalities being cultivated in other countries. We Americans exceptionalists are not so exceptional that we don’t have our own mob tendencies.
Yes, the social media platforms have created a mess, but if you believe in laissez faire economics, we should let them sort this problem out as they see fit, doesn’t the private sector know best?
If we don’t think media platforms like Twitter and Facebook should be restricting hate speech, maybe we should take a glance at the gigantic elephant-fox in the room filtering their content a whole lot more.
-
@approxinfinity Those are valid points, but I have a bigger problem when it’s the government at any level, or even grassroots organizations, forcing people to conform to a certain viewpoint. It reeks of fascism in my mind. It’s telling someone ‘you can’t think that way’ and then punishing them for it.
-
@wissox Do you have a big problem with the Trump administration being in bed with Fox News? Do you think it makes sense for Bill Shine, former co-president of Fox News and longtime friend of Sean Hannity to now join the Trump staff?
I can guarantee you that an agenda for what Fox viewers are allowed to think is being shaped by those people. Fox is the source that the President encourages people to accept as “real news” while all other sources are “fake news”.
-
“Pointing to black on black crime doesn’t solve this. When black on black crime occurs, someone can be held accountable for the crime.”
Not really. No one wants to snitch in black on black crime, so no one’s held accountable.
-
I see your point, but I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. Not sure how we can make a connection with a box store to a mega social media outlet. As one sells products and the other a platform to express and share. Also not sure Conservatives as a whole really care about the fate of Alex Jones. Just not really seeing a big outbreak on the issue.
It is a tough topic to debate from any point of view. As there has to be some kind of oversight on these social media sights. I think we all would agree?
Sadly I have no answers to solve the issue. The problem as I see it, isn’t Capitalism. I’m on aboard with you, on letting companies rise and fall as they may. As long as freedom is maintained the market will create what is needed. Look at Fox News it was created to fill a void of non Conservative view points. Now it’s the Number 1 News channel in the country, even besting the world wide giant CNN. Free market is a good thing. People will in the end decide for themselves if they are allowed freedom, and Companies will rise and fall because of those choices.
This isn’t the problem. It’s the Government and a certain political party pushing to suppress that very freedom, and trying to seize control of the platform, thereby dictating the what can be expressed and what can’t. Scary indeed.
-
@DoubleDD The government didn’t make these platforms remove Alex Jones. I also misspoke in earlier post where I implied Twitter removed him. They didn’t while others did. And this proves that this is a decision very much being left up to private industry for better or worse.
What you said about Fox, that they filled a need for conservative news, I think we should discuss. Again, for better or worse, private industry was allowed to sell a product without interference. That product is being marketed as news, but our generation is old enough to remember when the expectation was that news was supposed to be an unbiased portrayal of events. I.e. there should be no “liberal” news or “conservative” news.
A desire to seek out “liberal news” or “conservative news” should be an acknowledgement that in fact you are no longer seeking out “news” but rather you are seeking out an opinion. Not only is it tenuous to call an opinion “news” it is also tenuous to call it “conservative” when it is so clearly in bed with a political party and that party’s president. Should we assume that no matter what the party does every action is conservative? No! The news was once called the fourth branch of government. An impartial watchdog. It should remain free from political influence.
Fox News is neither conservative nor news.
-
@approxinfinity I used to watch Fox a lot. Although I’m still conservative in many ways, I grew tired of their act. I’m afraid they haven’t provided an alternative to ‘liberal’ news outlets. And they’re getting worse as Laura Ingraham proved yesterday.
-
Well to be fair what choice does one have? Sure it would be nice to watch a perceived news outlet and get both sides of the story. However this is no longer the case. I myself bounce around.
Almost all news is biased in way or another. So goes the argument. The concept of a pure journalist is dead. Almost all have an agenda and a political view to push. And all have a boss that signs the checks.
I’m not sure where I heard or read it. Yet the saying goes, “he who controls the media, controls the minds of the masses”. This is all too true in today’s climate. The days of good honest debate and comprise are dead. Look no further than the Russian Collison, and Trump? You have CNBC’s top news star pushing the narrative that Trump is a Soviet spy. And you expect a Conservative or a regular joe to watch that and say yea that’s good fair and balanced reporting? Especially when you have no true evidence to back such claims.
I don’t think so. I said to you once before that the DNC and Liberals created Trump? Well the DNC and liberals created Fox news. If one can’t understand/see the control the DNC and Liberals have over the Media platforms, then they will never understand why Fox is the #1 news media platform in America, and Conservatives talk shows dominant Am Dial/radio.
Some people just refuse to be brain washed.
-
8/11/18 - PGA Championship. Watching and I can’t get enough Tiger Woods. When Woods hit the scene, it was amazing. But I then went into phase where all I could do was root against Tiger. Kind of that “everyone hates the Yankees” thing. His overwhelming success bred a desire to see him fail. Now, though, it’s completely the opposite. All I want to do is see him win this tournament – win another major. When Woods returned, he couldn’t play in the WGC tourney this spring. Hadn’t done enough to qualify. How ridiculous. Woods should have a lifetime pass to any tourney he wants to play in. I’m sure the tour players feel the same. He is the GREATEST golfer in the last 30 years. He’s Nicklaus. He’s Palmer. He made the tour what it is today. He’s the most dominant player in any sport in recent memory. And I sure hope the guy can find a way to win another major. Can’t wait to see him in they Ryder Cup.
-
@HighEliteMajor I’m glad he’s competitive again. He’s been through hell and back in his personal life. Being groomed since childhood to be a sports legend doesn’t yield normal people. Woods seems to have learned what it is to be a man on his own terms, the hard way.
-
8/12/18 - Big surprise. A coordinated effort among newspapers to attack the president. Truth is, that’s all it’s been since he started winning primaries. He fought back. He took the fight directly to people through Twitter. And the national media when bananas. They could not take their credibility being challenged. “Fake news” is the entire package – failing to report successes, minimizing positive news, running “commentary” as it is news, holding yourself out as an objective source while attacking based on political beliefs. It’s the same song and dance. Now, newspapers are coordinating editorials to combat the attack on free press. REALITY CHECK - ITS AN ATTACK ON THE PROPAGANDA WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The press was Obama’s lap dog. Where was the watchdog press then? The mainstream media is a joke, and President Trump has called them on it. Now they whine like spoiled brats they are.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/11/media/boston-globe-free-press-editorial/index.html
-
@HighEliteMajor Thanks for not saying he’s the GOAT and starting another GOAT debate like we had a few months ago in basketball.
-
About time they brought charges. Just hope that this man gets convicted. Some days it feels like we are closer to the Wild West than we are to a modern society.
-
8/15/18 The perfect example of “fiction” from the KC Star. The Star has been on the open borders, pro “bring any immigrant to the country regardless of background, values, and security” bandwagon for quite some time. No bigger evidence is the laughable front page coverage of some anonymous Lawrence chemist. Today, the Star again provides front page reporting on this non-story. Read the story. The Star claims that the proper deportation proceedings led to a “grass roots revolt.” Again, a joke. There was no revolt. A small number of folks holding signs isn’t a revolt. Online petitions aren’t a “revolt.” Just purposeful and dishonest hyperbole. The Star, by it’s prior front page coverage, created the purported importance of the news. Try this – follow the law. Enforce the law. Send the illegals back to where they came from. Every one of them has a sob story. Most have families. But that’s not the standard that should be utilized. Let’s focus on getting folks here legally, and with high scrutiny. That’s the stark difference between left and right. Remember, the KC Star and the left want everyone to be here. They operate on feelings, and the law, and logic are secondary. See the last three links. The left doesn’t care about that story. EXTREMIST MUSLIMS ARE A SCOURGE ON THIS EARTH AND SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED IN THIS COUNTRY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. The problem is, when they come, how do you ferret out the freaks? Donald Trump, Jr. made the best comment during the campaign. if you were given a bowl of Skittles and you knew two or three were poisonous, would you eat one? Remember, entry to this country is a privilege and not a right. We can scrutinize who we allow in with great detail. And I’m always interested to hear the silence – the crickets – from the “other Muslims” when it comes to the extremists. Do they speak out? Do they condemn? Do they create groups that combat the extremists (those that murder, rape, and destroy) and challenge their approach? Sound familiar?
And the fact is, the story that is contained in the final links are far more newsworthy that some chemist in Lawrence who failed to ensure that he was legal – the most important thing in his life, perhaps. But not important enough to take care of, apparently. This is the KC Star manufacturing the importance of news, to fit their political narrative.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article216660415.html
-
You should learn the stories before calling them sob stories.
-
@HighEliteMajor when was the last time you vocally protested crimes by white supremacists? Yes, this does sound familiar. You want ethnic groups to be responsible for the actions of other members of the same ethnic group, it seems. That’s how I read you.
-
Unfortunately the KC Star has turned into a joke. When I read the newspaper I like to read pieces that are not bias and report the actual news. However, the Star does not do that anymore.
@wissox doesn’t everyone have a “sob story” nobody’s life is perfect. It’s called life.
-
@Woodrow I’ve said it here before in this thread even I think. Before calling them sob stories, learn about the refugees coming to our country from Central America. A bus ride back to Honduras or El Salvador would be a death sentence for some of my students I taught for the last 6 years. Escaping MS13 is one of those stories I heard. 2 wonderful 16 year old girls got here from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, the worlds most dangerous city. Do you really favor sending them back there? Todays conservatives do I guess when they say “send them all back” without even thinking about what that means. It also means vast number of unfilled jobs because the refugees Americans malign, do a lot of jobs that bring strawberries to your table, or milk to your wheaties, or wheaties to your milk for that matter. Your manicured lawns and office parks will be less so as more and more immigrants are being sent home.
-
Gosh, the moral compass of the country is broken. American society seems to be so much more jaded, suspicious, judgmental, polarized, self-serving and reactionary.
Hope this trend has peaked and we regress to the mean soon.
-
If we lock down the borders and send all the illegals home? Who will pick the strawberries, mow the lawns, clean the houses of our wealthy? I mean they do the jobs Americans don’t want to do.
LMAO
I wonder why Americans don’t want to work those jobs? UM could it be because they don’t pay enough? The problem with letting anybody and everybody with a sob story come in (which by the way is everybody). You flood the market with unskilled and uneducated labor. Driving down the cost for unskilled and uneducated labor. As Illegals will work for dirt cheap. Even the Black communities are suffering from undocumented and illegal immigration. As they are being undercut by the plethora of cheap labor that our current immigration approach seems to be.
Please stop with the you don’t care dribble? Everybody cares.
Everything is cause and effect. Sadly I’m finding out Libs/DNC never think about the effects just the cause.
Yet next week the topic will be hourly wages aren’t nearly high enough under the Trump economy. He should be impeached?
-
It isn’t as simple as “those damn illegals are stealing our jobs!” Without the cheap labor, produce probably gets made elsewhere instead of here. Which is a lot of money lost. Add in that if the price of the service/product increases, people won’t spend as much elsewhere.
Of course, it could result in people spending more money in the U.S. but that seems unlikely. The main problem is that the increase in the cost of the service/product is more than the tariff to have the product made somewhere else. If the service cost increases, the service will probably no longer exist.
This is not as simple as “Americans would take over those jobs.” Because it is simply not true. I work for a company that does manual labor in many different trades. And the problem isn’t pay. It isn’t demand from the consumers. The problem is that we can’t hire enough people. Most people don’t want to work in the heat and do a manual labor job when they can sit in the A/C and get paid enough money to not work outside. And I can’t blame them. I weed-eated for a company for an entire summer. Thousands of hours kicking sand and rocks back up into my face. And that was the job that made me sure I was going to graduate college and get an office job lol.
The main reason though, that American’s wouldn’t take those jobs and that it makes no sense to kick out all illegals, is the fact that their cost of living would increase significantly and basically mean they were getting paid the same shitty salary we are paying Mexicans right now, only they are busting their ass twice as hard to live an equally shitty life.
-
You keep saying inciting hate and violence. Well for 8 years I got called a racist because I didn’t vote for and didn’t agree with everything the previous president wanted to do. Where was everybody then? Nobody seemed to have a problem calling, and grouping people into a so called racist group just because they disagreed. Where was the justice warriors? No not a peep from Libs and the DNC. You know those fair minded people that just want to sit down and compromise?
Then people wonder why the love for Trump? Really?
-
Not voting for a president on policy grounds does not make you a racist. The trouble with President Obama was that a lot of people claimed to disagree on policy grounds, but then trotted out silly arguments like:
-
He’s a Muslim (untrue, but even if true, there’s nothing in US law to prohibit a Muslim president)
-
He was not born in the US (also untrue).
Simply put, lots of people (not pointing at you, just outlining the arguments) said their quibble with Obama was policy, but argued things that were simply veiled racism like anti-Muslim rhetoric and birtherism. Both attempt to suggest that Barack Obama was not “American” enough to be president.
It was hard to take some prominent politicians seriously when they said their issue with Obama was policy related, all the while seeing them “like” or even personally circulate jokes comparing President Obama and his family to gorillas, etc. Those are not policy arguments. Those are arguments rooted in racism. Again, not saying you did any of these things, just that lots of people did do these things while also arguing that their issues with Obama were policy driven.
Now, I will say that too many people painted with too broad a brush regarding racism against President Obama. There were some reasonable criticisms of the President. He was not perfect. I had my own criticisms of him, even though I supported him throughout his presidency.
Part of that, however, was that too often the chorus against him was led by individuals with racial undertones to their arguments, making it very difficult for individuals with true policy issues to make themselves heard.
That’s what makes racism so ugly. We can’t even have a reasonable policy discussion because those peddling their hate suck up all the airspace around the issue, preventing reasonable people from actually talking about the issue.
-
-
You make a great point. In 2012, Georgia had to have prisoners in the state’s penitentiary system pick fruit due to a worker shortage.
The thing about harvesting crops is that, when doing so by hand, because you are paid by volume, as the article says, you have to 1) work very hard and 2) be very good at it to make a decent wage.
Many workers in the US don’t want to do that because the time and effort it takes to become skilled enough in the job to make a decent wage is very taxing.
There’s another round of articles out over the last year detailing the same problem.
Part of the issue with this is perception. Many people, once they see a minority class doing certain work, devalue that work, making it less desirable as a career.
-
@justanotherfan The better policy decision would be additionally funding a program for registering current Illegal Immigrants and offering them all Work Visa’s that are good for as long as they pay taxes and don’t commit a felony.
Additionally, you severely punish anyone who houses or hires illegals that don’t register in an attempt to save money on taxes. This could be done using a whistleblower/bounty law where ratting out a company that is hiring illegals would be given half of the money resulting from the fines. The fines of course would have to be so big that it wouldn’t be even close to worth hiring an unregistered illegal.
I have no issues with a cheap workforce. But they do need to pay taxes because they do use things provided by our government and the taxpayers. It’s that simple. About 1.7% of the U.S. population is Illegal Immigrants (12.5M estimated). And people pretend like the shitty jobs they fill is what is hurting the country. That is inherently false. What is hurting the country more than having a great supply of cheap labor is that we aren’t collecting billions of dollars in taxes. (By my estimate, roughly $37.5B should be collected by the 12.5M illegal immigrants who live here). I do know that some of them pay taxes, hoping for immunity some day. But, I would say that is not the case for most. Even if half were, we are talking about a very large amount of money. This also doesn’t include employers who should be paying an additional $19B into Social Security and Medicaid for their portion of Employer’s taxes. Which, again, is a large number even if cut in half.
We simply need to capitalize on the low wage workforce, not attack it because we keep forgetting history and how immigrants coming in to do low wage jobs is literally how the country was built from day 1. And has been how this country has thrived. How many more times do we need to learn this lesson? Italians, Irish and Asians have all done this same exact thing. The U.S. is still standing.
What is funny to me, it is always those who are scared of someone being better than them that fight this the most. Most Irish around the Civil War Era were FOR slavery simply because they didn’t want the competition for low wage jobs in the North. This, to me, is what most middle-class American’s are scared of today. Competition. Conservatives today crack me up because they are the biggest Champions of “Competition and Capitalism and a Free Market”, but fear all of those things the moment you bring up a Minority population coming in and “stealing all the good jobs that could go to Americans.”
-
Yea I was never big on the whole Birth certificate issue as some where. Yet just as in the case of Trump not showing his tax returns. Obama could’ve brought that issue to a close quite quickly just by showing his birth certificate so much sooner than he did. Once Obama revealed his birth certificate the issue was dead. A lesson Trump it seems hasn’t learned yet.
Sometimes people create unnecessary turmoil. Even if the unfounded claims are indeed based in craziness.
As for the claim of the this mythical movement not to elect Obama as president because he was black? I do believe is unfounded. Sure there were people that didn’t vote for Obama because he was black. Just like there were people that voted for him because he was black. Just as there are persons of color that won’t vote for a person that is white, women that don’t vote men, and vice versa. There will always be these types of persons on the fringes, but hardly main stream. Let alone big enough to sway an election. After all Obama was elected president, and twice at that.
I think? Just an opinion? You had a few isolated incidents of racist persons getting way too much attention by certain media outlets. Thereby creating this hysteria that the KKK is back large and in charge, and that all right leaning white people are racist. When in fact it was just a few misguided individuals, that have some serious social issues. Yet you still see and hear some of this after math on a lot of talking points and media outlets. The theme being now, if a person voted for Trump they are some how racist? Seems a bit unfair.
Just me again, but I think that maybe we as a society are jumping the gun with some of the claims that are being thrown around in this hostile political environment we find ourselves today. To be labeled a racist is quite serious. Case in point? People are losing jobs and being barred from social gatherings all because they voted for Trump… Doesn’t seem like a fair and free society to me? Again I concur they are isolated situations carried out by misguided persons. Yet there seems not to be much pup on this issue from the media. Which only leaves some Americans to believe that the media is indeed bias.
The real question we should be asking? Why did middle America and the Rust Belt abandon the DNC party this last election? That’s the question the DNC should be asking it’s self. And claiming it was racism, isn’t a legit and just answer.
-
@DoubleDD Obama released 11 years of tax returns as a presidential candidate. You’re comparing horseshoes and hand grenades.
-
approxinfinity said:
@DoubleDD Obama released 11 years of tax returns as a presidential candidate. You’re comparing horseshoes and hand grenades.
Actually I think if you go back read what I was saying it was quite comparable. Both withheld a private document that so many wanted to see.
Obama relented finally and revealed his birth certificate. The issue went away. Where as Trump still hasn’t and the issue still persists.
-
Its a valid point you make. Yet I would counter if we didn’t make it so easy for persons to stay home smoke dope and play video games all day with all our social programs. They’d have to get a job. Hence no more man power shortage.
-
Also, it should be noted that while presidential candidates traditionally release their taxes, it is not traditionally expected that they release their birth certificate.
The notion that Obama should have released his birth certificate simply because someone with racial motivations decided to question it is in itself a form of racism - that as a minority, Obama should have to answer any question with proof, no matter how absurd or ridiculous, in order to prove his legitimacy.
People often overlook this as a subtle form of racism - that minorities must provide proof any time any non-minority questions them or what they are doing, or satisfy the questions of every non-minority before they are legitimized - somewhat like police requiring ID when they stop minorities doing every day activities, but that’s another issue for another day.
I have heard, throughout the years, that Obama should have released his birth certificate, his college grades, his law license and his admissions letters to college simply because someone questioned it, and “he could clear it up by releasing the documents.”
President Obama rightly recognized this as a form of racism, that if he provided proof for every challenge, the flood of challenges would never cease.
-
@DoubleDD sources? Stats that can be checked? Where is your basis for that statement coming from?
-
@DoubleDD see what @justanotherfan said… thats exactly the point here.
-
I think you have me mistaken. I don’t really care about a politician releasing his birth certificate or tax returns. There is no law that says they must. Plus I’m pretty sure the FBI and IRS do a fine job of vetting persons running the for office.
I’m also not comparing the two. I’m just pointing a person can save themselves a lot of trouble by just showing the people what they want to know.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
@DoubleDD sources? Stats that can be checked? Where is your basis for that statement coming from?
This isn’t what you’re looking for but I though it was a decent read.
-
@DoubleDD The IRS cares about whether you are paying your taxes. I don’t think they care about much else, and yes, I think we can assume that Donald Trump pays his taxes. The purpose of providing your tax returns as a candidate pertains more to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution which states:
“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.”
And it has been standard behavior for presidential candidates to provide their tax returns.
When was the last time you heard of a President’s citizenship being questioned? Yes, I do think by the time a candidate is running for office his citizenship has been pretty well vetted.
-
When has the last time you heard of Impeachment when the president hasn’t done anything?
The Emolument Clause maybe be the standard but it’s not the law. There is no law that says a person has to show their tax returns to serve in the government.
-
Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:
- the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
- prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
- prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- his attempts to tamper with witnesses
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[22]
- encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
- encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
- concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
- attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
- permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
- making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
(other articles were dropped)
-
approxinfinity said:
Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:
- the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
- prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
- prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- his attempts to tamper with witnesses
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[22]
- encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
- encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
- concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
- attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
- permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
- making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
(other articles were dropped)
Come on he lied about having sexual relationships with an intern in the White House. Even if he didn’t lie he still had a sexual relationship with an intern in the White House.
And for the record I liked Old Bill. Still do. Even though some stories have come out that he has been a bit too aggressive with the opposite sex.
-
@DoubleDD He was impeached for lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Had he not done those things, he wouldn’t have been impeached.
Do you think obstruction of justice should be an impeachable offense? And, why do you think Trump’s lawyers are trying to avoid having him testify?
-
@justanotherfan Of course, Trump promised to provide his tax returns, so that was a lie. It also took our current President a few years before he acknowledged that Obama’s birth certificate was genuine–and then only after repeated pressure during the campaign. A few years during which he continued to claim that he had “people in Hawaii” who had investigated and had discovered amazing evidence about Obama’s BCert that Trump promised he would reveal.
The man can’t help lying, even when he has no reason to!
-
@DoubleDD The prohibition against emoluments indeed is the law. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. It is not, perhaps, separately spelled out in federal statutes. But do not say it is not the law!
-
Well you are a judge even though retired. I’ll take your word for it.
-
I think your reaching a bit. Why should Trump talk to Mueller? Mueller has no reason or right to demand such a meeting. Trump hasn’t done anything wrong. Mueller is just trying to find some wrong doing. Which I understand what your saying.
Yet it’s common knowledge when a person is picked up by police not to say anything until a lawyer is present. Why is that? That is street cred, and basic survival in this world of litigation.
Look I get you loath Trump. Yet he would be stupid to engage in such a conversation. Especially when there is no reason for such a conversation.
Basic street knowledge.
-
@DoubleDD My point is that Trump firing people due to the Russia investigation, as well as his tweets demanding the investigation to cease, etc could be construed as obstruction of justice, and as @mayjay mentioned, Trump is a habitual liar, and if he were to take the stand, he’d almost certainly get himself a perjury charge as well.
So, your original question was “when was a President impeached for nothing?” and my point was, Trump’s actions are not much different than Clinton’s. So if you think Trump has done nothing, then Clinton is the comp you seek.
-
You do know how to tell when a Politician is lying? When their lips are moving. Lmao.
