Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats... don’t want America to see

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    Yes, try not get pwned by Putin. You are hanging by a thread.
    We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
    Ben
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      This scenario is getting flipped around to the point that it is being implied that Biden is immune to investigation for prior acts simply because he is a potential opponent to Trump in 2020.
      Biden is a protected class.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        Trump was clearly pinning Zelensky down over the investigations holding the aid until such time as Zelensky committed publicly to the investigations.
        It sure is funny how nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of this.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          In that case, the police better come with something better than "We just want to talk." And you'll want a lawyer at your side regardless so that you don't inadvertently talk yourself into trouble.
          Well, there's often a conversation to be had about having a conversation. If I've got a good case and they don't seem to want to talk to me, and I just tell them that. And I give them a deadline, like "If I don't get a phone call from you by next Friday, I'll assume you don't want to talk and I'll finalize my case decision". One recent case I got a conviction on was like that. She was polite but refused to talk to me (about the case) without an attorney. So I gave her two weeks to talk to her attorney. At the end of two weeks, I called her and asked if she wanted to talk. She said her attorney told her not to talk. So I clearly told her I had a strong case and would be finalizing my decision by the end of the day. She didn't change her mind. Two hours later she was in handcuffs. A year later, she's pleading guilty in court.

          Honestly, it's fairly uncommon for the police to have enough evidence to charge without any conversation at all from the defendant. And of those, usually the interview is close to useless anyways. Most suspects don't really hurt themselves by talking the police, but sometimes they do. But in those edge cases, talking to the suspect can help the suspect if they're innocent. I've decided to not charge in multiple cases (typically self-defense in physical assault cases, but occasionally in sex cases too) when I had a pretty good case against them, but what the suspect had to say proved important. I make an honest effort to find the truth, but at the end of the day I'm making an educated guess and the court system sorts it out.

          If you're innocent and it's a borderline cases (one that's weak but I have enough to charge), your best hope to avoid any hassle whatsoever is to just convince me you're innocent. You don't even have to prove you're innocent, just convince me. I don't HAVE to charge anyone with anything.

          One last note: I'm always happen to talk to people with their attorney present, though that rarely happens. For some ODD reason, those slimey defense attorneys are rarely willing to take time out of their busy schedules to do a sit-down with their client and the police and help their client avoid getting charged. I mean....it's ALMOST like they make money when the client does get charged....
          Last edited by myth; 11-25-2019, 12:15 PM.
          "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Not ignoring the rest of your post - you often make great points, and I'm glad you're around. On this point, though, if it were ONLY for personal reasons, there's be a problem. If the 'quid pro quo' was in the national interest, AND happened to be a personal benefit -- sometimes that happens.

            IF (for example) I'm calling for an investigation of an abuse of previous funding or appropriation of military materiel to or by a foreign government, and that investigation happens to expose misdeeds of a campaign rival, so be it.
            IMO, if one is selecting the issue based on the criteria of benefitting oneself....then they're just using the benefit to the country as a way to justify what they want. I'm not precisely against that, but I don't like it either. If, however, one just stumbles across a national concern which, when corrected would also benefit oneself....not so bad. It's often difficult to tell the difference.

            However...neither of these are what Trump did. After all, we're talking about ole crotch-grabber-in-chief.
            "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

            Comment


            • Originally posted by myth View Post
              Well, there's often a conversation to be had about having a conversation. If I've got a good case and they don't seem to want to talk to me, and I just tell them that. And I give them a deadline, like "If I don't get a phone call from you by next Friday, I'll assume you don't want to talk and I'll finalize my case decision". One recent case I got a conviction on was like that. She was polite but refused to talk to me (about the case) without an attorney. So I gave her two weeks to talk to her attorney. At the end of two weeks, I called her and asked if she wanted to talk. She said her attorney told her not to talk. So I clearly told her I had a strong case and would be finalizing my decision by the end of the day. She didn't change her mind. Two hours later she was in handcuffs. A year later, she's pleading guilty in court.
              In that case, the woman had to know she was guilty and was presumably hoping to avoid charges by not talking to the cops, which obviously didn't work.

              The one example I've heard about why it's a bad idea to talk to the police without a lawyer is...

              "What can you tell us about your neighbor's murder?"
              "Well, I didn't shoot the guy, if that's what you're asking."
              "And how did you know he was shot?"

              Originally posted by myth View Post
              If you're innocent and it's a borderline cases (one that's weak but I have enough to charge), your best hope to avoid any hassle whatsoever is to just convince me you're innocent. You don't even have to prove you're innocent, just convince me. I don't HAVE to charge anyone with anything.
              Out of curiosity, do you look unfavorably on people who "lawyer up"? In police dramas, they always seem to take that as a sure sign of someone's guilt.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                I'll point out that RTT responded to a post similarly lacking in substance by noting the irony of you accusing others of what you so frequently do yourself. If you don't want personal attacks, then don't perpetrate them yourself.
                Your perception is skewed. And RTT in particular posts less substance my way than the pixie.

                Woah there, big fella. You sort of missed the step where she ignored your request to stop responding to you before leveling your scurrilous accusation.
                Not really, but if you want to pretend there was some chance she would not ignore my request, feel free.

                Duly noted. Your actions lately are not likely to generate much sympathy toward your point of view, for which you have only yourself to blame.
                We would disagree. As I view it, believing trump is a bad actor and that good people should not support him does not and should not put me in any position to be 'blamed'. And that is the 'sin' for which I am mostly maligned.

                It is YOUR choice to interpret nearly any opposition to your point of view as an attack and YOUR choice to respond in kind. Those who cannot tolerate "attacks" should not be picking fights.
                No. There is no 'interpretation' about what I am speaking of. Ad hominem is an attack on the person, not the idea. I don't mind people disagreeing with my ideas. But unfortunately most of you don't know the difference (either in responding or in being responded to) between attacking the person and disagreeing with the idea. And only rarely can you disagree with a person without also including some sort of personal attack in the post.

                And I think it especially egregious when moderators abuse their power and respond almost exclusively with ad hominem because when they do so they can't be placed on ignore. So it would seem that one of the rules and responsibilities of being a moderator is that you can't spend your time attacking the people your are supposed to be moderating.

                Would you like me to no longer respond to you? That can be arranged.
                I have never asked anyone that has something of substance to say not to respond to me - except in the case of moderators who just would not stop in a long series of ad homenim.

                My typical response to endless ad hominem is a temporary ignore to let them calm down and make it easier for me to let them calm down. But that is just not possible in the case of a moderator.

                RTT's response is not 'endless ad hominem' per se. But her responses to me are mostly ad hominem, so when I went to put her on temporary ignore until this current round of 'slam the ox' is over, I discovered yet again I can't do that to moderators.

                Jim
                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-25-2019, 12:34 PM.
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  This scenario is getting flipped around to the point that it is being implied that Biden is immune to investigation for prior acts simply because he is a potential opponent to Trump in 2020.
                  Biden can't be investigated because he's a potential Democratic nominee for president.
                  Trump must be investigated because he's a potential Republican nominee for president.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Biden can't be investigated because he's a potential Democratic nominee for president.
                    Trump must be investigated because he's a potential Republican nominee for president.
                    You gottaproblem widdat?
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Your perception is skewed. And RTT in particular posts less substance my way than the pixie.



                      Not really, but if you want to pretend there was some chance she would not ignore my request, feel free.



                      We would disagree. As I view it, believing trump is a bad actor and that good people should not support him does not and should not put me in any position to be 'blamed'. And that is the 'sin' for which I am mostly maligned.



                      No. There is no 'interpretation' about what I am speaking of. Ad hominem is an attack on the person, not the idea. I don't mind people disagreeing with my ideas. But unfortunately most of you don't know the difference (either in responding or in being responded to) between attacking the person and disagreeing with the idea. And only rarely can you disagree with a person without also including some sort of personal attack in the post.

                      And I think it especially egregious when moderators abuse their power and respond almost exclusively with ad hominem because when they do so they can't be placed on ignore. So it would seem that one of the rules and responsibilities of being a moderator is that you can't spend your time attacking the people your are supposed to be moderating.



                      I have never asked anyone that has something of substance to say not to respond to me - except in the case of moderators who just would not stop in a long series of ad homenim.

                      My typical response to endless ad hominem is a temporary ignore to let them calm down and make it easier for me to let them calm down. But that is just not possible in the case of a moderator.

                      RTT's response is not 'endless ad hominem' per se. But her responses to me are mostly ad hominem, so when I went to put her on temporary ignore until this current round of 'slam the ox' is over, I discovered yet again I can't do that to moderators.

                      Jim
                      In other words, it's everybody ELSE'S fault.

                      I agree that RTT does not post much of substance, but it is entirely unfair of you to assume that she will not heed your request with zero evidence to back that assumption.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        In that case, the woman had to know she was guilty and was presumably hoping to avoid charges by not talking to the cops, which obviously didn't work.

                        The one example I've heard about why it's a bad idea to talk to the police without a lawyer is...

                        "What can you tell us about your neighbor's murder?"
                        "Well, I didn't shoot the guy, if that's what you're asking."
                        "And how did you know he was shot?"


                        Out of curiosity, do you look unfavorably on people who "lawyer up"? In police dramas, they always seem to take that as a sure sign of someone's guilt.
                        Generally, yes. Most of the time, it IS because they're guilty. Seriously, about 95% of people talk to me. Dude could be caught literally with blood on his hands, and 95% of the time I can convince him to talk to me. I like to think that's partly because I'm not trying to railroad people and I DO genuinely want to hear their side of the story. I didn't get into this line of work to arrest people for things they didn't do, and it's the last thing I want to end up doing.

                        That being said...I don't charge people just because they've pissed me off. But pissing me off is a sure way to get charged if you actually have done something illegal. If I was planning to overlook it, but you've pissed me off....my willingness to overlook things goes out the window. Like a woman the other day who made me angry right after driving up in car (she doesn't have a license). The only reason I didn't charge her is because I won't want to waste time in traffic court (and I normally overlook small things that I don't feel I can justify the time to handle). But if she'd have made me more angry, or if her illegal action had been just a smidge more serious, she'd have been taking a ride downtown, so to speak. I don't like being petty or vindictive, but I also see no reason to encourage criminals to be downright disrespectful. If you do me no favors, I do you no favors.
                        "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by myth View Post
                          Generally, yes. Most of the time, it IS because they're guilty. Seriously, about 95% of people talk to me. Dude could be caught literally with blood on his hands, and 95% of the time I can convince him to talk to me. I like to think that's partly because I'm not trying to railroad people and I DO genuinely want to hear their side of the story. I didn't get into this line of work to arrest people for things they didn't do, and it's the last thing I want to end up doing.

                          That being said...I don't charge people just because they've pissed me off. But pissing me off is a sure way to get charged if you actually have done something illegal. If I was planning to overlook it, but you've pissed me off....my willingness to overlook things goes out the window. Like a woman the other day who made me angry right after driving up in car (she doesn't have a license). The only reason I didn't charge her is because I won't want to waste time in traffic court (and I normally overlook small things that I don't feel I can justify the time to handle). But if she'd have made me more angry, or if her illegal action had been just a smidge more serious, she'd have been taking a ride downtown, so to speak. I don't like being petty or vindictive, but I also see no reason to encourage criminals to be downright disrespectful. If you do me no favors, I do you no favors.
                          Since we're talking cop stuff -- I'll tell you my most embarrassing story, that happened this time of the year many years ago.

                          It was about 2 AM, and a really really cold windy Texas night, and I came upon a car partly in a ditch, with a left flat tire, and an elderly African-American woman trying to change the tire. As I got out, and approached the vehicle, I noticed somebody in the driver's seat, and it was a MAN! I was young and cocky and it just kinda outraged me that a MAN would be sitting in the warm vehicle, while a WOMAN was outside in the cold changing the tire. I came up to the car door, ordered him out, and he resisted. I was just about to yank him out by force when I ... um.... noticed he didn't have any legs.

                          He was a Korean War vet who had lost both legs to a land mine. I was so terribly embarrassed... I changed the tire, which I was gonna do anyway, and apologized profusely, and helped them get the car out of the ditch. For the next few days, I felt the shame that I had acted so hastily, and it was definitely a lesson learned.

                          About a week later, the woman stopped in at the PD and asked for me. She asked, "young man, do you have anywhere to go for Thanksgiving?" I was stunned -- she said, "Gerald would love it if you would be our guest at our home". Wow. I had Thanksgiving with them for the next 3 years, til I got married and we started our own family tradition, but I often think of them -- and the lesson learned.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            In other words, it's everybody ELSE'S fault.

                            I agree that RTT does not post much of substance, but it is entirely unfair of you to assume that she will not heed your request with zero evidence to back that assumption.
                            Is it really unfair? truly now.

                            But after all, there is a clear double standard in effect. Why wouldn't it have been unfair of me to do that?

                            Have a happy thanksgiving OBP.

                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by myth View Post
                              IMO, if one is selecting the issue based on the criteria of benefitting oneself....then they're just using the benefit to the country as a way to justify what they want. I'm not precisely against that, but I don't like it either. If, however, one just stumbles across a national concern which, when corrected would also benefit oneself....not so bad. It's often difficult to tell the difference.

                              However...neither of these are what Trump did. After all, we're talking about ole crotch-grabber-in-chief.
                              Then you must not have paid much attention to the OP, which sadly got obfuscated by yet another thread -- among like half a dozen other threads -- about Trump's "quid pro quo" Ukraine phone call.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by myth View Post
                                Generally, yes. Most of the time, it IS because they're guilty. Seriously, about 95% of people talk to me. Dude could be caught literally with blood on his hands, and 95% of the time I can convince him to talk to me. I like to think that's partly because I'm not trying to railroad people and I DO genuinely want to hear their side of the story. I didn't get into this line of work to arrest people for things they didn't do, and it's the last thing I want to end up doing.

                                That being said...I don't charge people just because they've pissed me off. But pissing me off is a sure way to get charged if you actually have done something illegal. If I was planning to overlook it, but you've pissed me off....my willingness to overlook things goes out the window. Like a woman the other day who made me angry right after driving up in car (she doesn't have a license). The only reason I didn't charge her is because I won't want to waste time in traffic court (and I normally overlook small things that I don't feel I can justify the time to handle). But if she'd have made me more angry, or if her illegal action had been just a smidge more serious, she'd have been taking a ride downtown, so to speak. I don't like being petty or vindictive, but I also see no reason to encourage criminals to be downright disrespectful. If you do me no favors, I do you no favors.
                                Being respectful goes a long ways. Many, many years ago in my former life as a TV news photographer, I actually got a cop to back down from charging me with reckless driving to giving me just a speeding ticket instead because I was polite and respectful (long story, but the short version is that I was going 60 in a 35MPH zone trying to get footage back ahead of the deadline; the officer was pretty hot about the fact that it took him 15 blocks to catch up with me, and I said, "I would have slowed down sooner if I knew you were back there," which got a laugh and completely changed his mood).
                                Last edited by Mountain Man; 11-25-2019, 02:54 PM.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                87 responses
                                395 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X