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

Coronavirus Outbreak...

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

  • Claim: “Donald Trump Has Stake In Hydroxychloroquine Drugmaker: Report”

    That’s the headline across a HuffPost story that goes on to claim that “President Donald Trump reportedly owns a stake in a company that produces hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malaria drug he has repeatedly touted as a coronavirus treatment even though his experts say there’s no strong evidence it works.”

    Verdict: False.

    The report cited by the HuffPost is from a New York Times story that said: “Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine.”

    Trump’s personal financial interest, however, does not include a stake in Sanofi–and the New York Times did not claim it did. Instead, Trump’s financial disclosures show that his three family trusts each had investments in a $10.3 billion Dodge & Cox mutual fund that owns shares in Sanofi, the world’s fifth-largest drugmaker by prescription sales. As of its latest disclosures, those holdings amount to just 3.3 percent of the fund’s holdings.

    Trump’s most recent financial disclosure forms lists holdings in the Dodge & Cox International Fund valued between $1,001 and $15,000. That means Trump holds a maximum stake in the mutual funds of $45,000, giving him an indirect interest in Sanofi of $1,485 at the most.

    His “financial interest” in Sanofi, which has a market capitalization of nearly $58 billion, could be as low as $99.10.

    https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...ine-drugmaker/

    Looks like another liberal narrative just went swirling down the toilet.
    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 Sparko View Post
      I just said I found it after you mentioned you found nothing. It talks about the same thing as the other article, about how the virus is causing the hemoglobin to stop functioning and releasing the iron into the body which antioxidents like vitamin C could help remove. And how the hydroxychloroquine works by binding to the hemoglobin so that the virus can't. It sounds a lot more scientific than the Vox article, that's for sure. Neither you nor I have enough medical knowledge to evaluate it fully.
      I'm not actually evaluating the article you linked so much as I'm looking at its use in the original article. As best I can tell, the article you linked is an intriguing possibility whose "actuality" status will be determined when it is replicated and peer-reviewed, as with all good science. Meanwhile, the author of the original article seems to be taking information from this source (assuming it is his source) and coming to conclusions it does not support. I don't need to have a medical degree to assess that I just need to read the two articles.

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      I don't have an opinion at this time, but it sounds plausible as an explanation of what is really going on with this disease and why it is killing people.
      I'm not sure which "it" you are referring to.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        What trial did you watch? Democrats were allowed to present witness testimony and documentation.
        Umm...no, MM. That was the entire purpose of the vote. The only materials that were aloud were the materials that were passed over as part of handing the impeachment over to the Senate. Since the Trump administration blocked (or attempted to block) every testimony from people in a position to offer more evidence, and every requested document from the House, there is a vast body of information that was never secured, and many people we never heard from.

        When a grand jury hands down an indictment, it is on the basis of preliminary information and investigations. The subsequent trial is never limited to "only what the grand jury heard." The prosecution and defense both have the freedom to investigate, bring additional information, and make their case. All of that was barred in the Senate trial. Only Collins and Romney voted for witnesses and documentation. The vote ended up 51 to 49 against.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedmprig View Post
          Umm...no, MM.
          Umm...yes, carpe. The Democrats presented video of testimony that was given during the House hearings. They presented documents they had gathered during their investigation. All they had to do was clear the low hurdle of convincing a simple majority of Senators that there was sufficient reason to continue the trial, and they failed.

          Originally posted by carpedmprig View Post
          ...there is a vast body of information that was never secured, and many people we never heard from.
          Because the House apparently didn't think that information was worth securing, or those people worth hearing from, before voting to impeach. If they had bothered to be more diligent during the investigation then they could have presented all of it during opening arguments, but it's not a good look when the prosecution's opening argument is essentially, "We'd have a really great case if only we had more evidence."
          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
            Umm...yes, carpe. The Democrats presented video of testimony that was given during the House hearings. They presented documents they had gathered during their investigation. All they had to do was clear the low hurdle of convincing a simple majority of Senators that there was sufficient reason to continue the trial, and they failed.
            That was in the part of my post you cut out - the Senate was limited to what the House provided. And you and I BOTH know that there was no "bar" they could have cleared. MANY senators on both sides had already declared their minds made up before the trial even started, including the Majority and minority leaders. If that happened in a court of law, the people doing it would never be seated on the jury.

            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Because the House apparently didn't think that information was worth securing, or those people worth hearing from, before voting to impeach. If they had bothered to be more diligent during the investigation then they could have presented all of it during opening arguments, but it's not a good look when the prosecution's opening argument is essentially, "We'd have a really great case if only we had more evidence."
            No - The House tried to secure those documents, and were blocked at every turn. The decision had to be made to move forward on the basis of the evidence provided or be tied up in the courts right through the election cycle. They chose the former because they had enough evidence to hand down the equivalent of an indictment.

            As I noted in the previous post (which you also cut out), the House procedure is the equivalent of such a grand jury indictment. The trial happens in the Senate. So the message actually was "we would have a really good case if you would actually permit evidence beyond what was shown to the grand jury." The grand jury only needs enough evidence to determine that a trial is warranted. A trial needs enough evidence to convict. Two different standards. The Senate limited the evidence to the former and refused the admission of any further evidence. That's a show trial.

            What happened was the equivalent of a judge telling the prosecutor and defense, "we're going to have a trial here - but you can only show the jury the evidence that was presented to the grand jury." That's a travesty of justice by any measure.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-07-2020, 04:31 PM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              That was in the part of my post you cut out - the Senate was limited to what the House provided. And you and I BOTH know that there was no "bar" they could have cleared. MANY senators on both sides had already declared their minds made up before the trial even started, including the Majority and minority leaders. If that happened in a court of law, the people doing it would never be seated on the jury.



              No - The House tried to secure those documents, and were blocked at every turn. The decision had to be made to move forward on the basis of the evidence provided or be tied up in the courts right through the election cycle. They chose the former because they had enough evidence to hand down the equivalent of an indictment.

              As I noted in the previous post (which you also cut out), the House procedure is the equivalent of such a grand jury indictment. The trial happens in the Senate. So the message actually was "we would have a really good case if you would actually permit evidence beyond what was shown to the grand jury." The grand jury only needs enough evidence to determine that a trial is warranted. A trial needs enough evidence to convict. Two different standards. The Senate limited the evidence to the former and refused the admission of any further evidence. That's a show trial.

              What happened was the equivalent of a judge telling the prosecutor and defense, "we're going to have a trial here - but you can only show the jury the evidence that was presented to the grand jury." That's a travesty of justice by any measure.
              Do you think that MM doesn't actually understand the facts as detailed in the above. I think he does, I think thy all know it, but you'll never get one of them to admit to it publicly. They're on the team, right or wrong.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                ...the Senate was limited to what the House provided.
                Exactly. And if the House wanted to provide more, then they should have gathered more when they had the opportunity instead of rushing to impeach and then going to the Senate with a half-baked indictment that forced them to concede in their opening argument that they didn't actually have sufficient evidence to push for a conviction. If a prosecutor took a case like that into any court in the US, the judge would immediately throw it out.
                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
                  Exactly. And if the House wanted to provide more, then they should have gathered more when they had the opportunity instead of rushing to impeach and then going to the Senate with a half-baked indictment that forced them to concede in their opening argument that they didn't actually have sufficient evidence to push for a conviction. If a prosecutor took a case like that into any court in the US, the judge would immediately throw it out.
                  The DA is not required to provide the Grand Jury with enough information to convict - only enough information to justify a trial. Likewise, the House is not required to have enough evidence to convict, but only enough evidence to warrant crafting articles of impeachment and sending the matter to trial. You are trying to hold the House to a requirement to actually pre-run the trial and have enough evidence to convict. That is not their job - as explicit defined in the constitution. Add to that the statements made before the trial even began that senators had already made up their minds - and the result is a show trial.

                  But I agree with Jim: there is essentially no way you are oblivious to this - and further exchanges will be largely pointless. It is also a sidetrack to the purpose of this thread.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedmprig View Post
                    The DA is not required to provide the Grand Jury with enough information to convict - only enough information to justify a trial. Likewise, the House is not required to have enough evidence to convict, but only enough evidence to warrant crafting articles of impeachment and sending the matter to trial. You are trying to hold the House to a requirement to actually pre-run the trial and have enough evidence to convict. That is not their job - as explicit defined in the constitution. Add to that the statements made before the trial even began that senators had already made up their minds - and the result is a show trial.
                    You're treating it like a civil matter when there are marked differences. When the House votes to impeach, it is not the equivalent of a civil indictment which marks the beginning of a case. Rather, per the Constitution, they are saying, "We have enough here to warrant the president's removal from office." But then when the House managers present their case to the Senate and admit in their opening arguments, "Actually, guys, we don't have enough here to warrant the president's removal from office," then what choice does the Senate have other than to vote "not guilty"?
                    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 carpedm9587 View Post
                      We have 19,100 new cases so far today, but 1,371 deaths already...

                      We also now have more cases than the next three countries combined. Those are now Spain, Italy, and France. The France situation is getting ugly. Fortunately, our deaths are nowhere the total of theirs.
                      Updating today's numbers:27,583 new cases and 1,877 new deaths. We're fast approaching 2,000 new deaths/day. Indeed big jump for France. The country to watch is India as the virus has hit the biggest slum in Mumbai.

                      Comment


                      • Worldometer has a pretty effective tracking for this virus (thanks LM!) and some of the statistics are pretty telling. It lists 212 "countries/other" that are being tracked, so most of the world's countries are on the list plus places like the Faukland Islands, the Caribbean Netherlands, and the Faeroe Islands. I was curious how the U.S. stacks up against what is happening in these countries/other places. It looks like this:
                        • Total infections - we are 1st on this list.
                        • Total deaths - we are 3rd on this list (behind Italy and Spain in that order).
                        • Total recovered - we are 6th on this list (behind China, Spain Germany, Iran, and Italy in that order).
                        • Total active cases - we are 1st on this list.
                        • Total serious/critical cases - we are 1st on this list.
                        • Total cases per 1M pop - we are 21st on this list.
                        • Total deaths per 1M pop - we are 17th on this list.
                        • Total tests - we are 1st on this list.
                        • Total tests per 1M pop - we are 41st on this list.



                        Interesting distribution....
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                          Updating today's numbers:27,583 new cases and 1,877 new deaths. We're fast approaching 2,000 new deaths/day. Indeed big jump for France. The country to watch is India as the virus has hit the biggest slum in Mumbai.
                          Ouch
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            You're treating it like a civil matter when there are marked differences. When the House votes to impeach, it is not the equivalent of a civil indictment which marks the beginning of a case. Rather, per the Constitution, they are saying, "We have enough here to warrant the president's removal from office." But then when the House managers present their case to the Senate and admit in their opening arguments, "Actually, guys, we don't have enough here to warrant the president's removal from office," then what choice does the Senate have other than to vote "not guilty"?
                            As useless as this is, it is important, I believe, to note that the constitution says no such thing. There are three relevant parts:
                            • The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5)
                            • The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7)
                            • The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. (Article II, Section 4)


                            The only other place in the Constitution that Impeachment is mentioned is to note that the president cannot pardon someone that Congress has Impeached and Convicted (Article II, Section 2).

                            Only the Senate can declare that there is enough evidence to warrant remove from office, per the Constitution. The House can do no more than Impeach, which is to pass articles to the Senate for the purpose of trial. The trial cannot do more than remove from office - if an illegal action has occurred, a separate indictment and trial is required to convict and punish. That is ALL the constitution says about impeachment. You are adding the rest. The parallel to civil law is inappropriate since no grand jury is involved in civil matters, AFAIK.

                            The reference you made to civil law is inappropriate; the parallel is to criminal law and the roles are almost perfectly aligned. The Judiciary Committee functions as the DA, determining if articles of impeachment are to be recommended to the house. The House functions as the grand jury determining if there is adequate cause to pass the case over for trial and what the charges will be. The Senate is the courtroom complete with judge, jury, and (presumably) witnesses, investigations, and documentation. The House is not required to provide adequate evidence to convict, only to enough to warrant a trial. If they were required to have adequate evidence to convict, there would be no need for a trial in the Senate. The FFs specifically separated these two functions.

                            While impeachment is often politically driven, it is still a legal proceeding and should be conducted as such. What the Senate did was a travesty of justice. Hopefully it will outrage the left and moderates enough to sweep Trump out of office in a landslide. It clearly will have no impact on Trump's base. Neither will Trump's parade of abuses of power and missteps in dealing with the current pandemic.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-07-2020, 06:40 PM.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              As useless as this is, it is important, I believe, to note that the constitution says no such thing. There are three relevant parts:
                              • The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5)
                              • The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7)
                              • The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. (Article II, Section 4)


                              The only other place in the Constitution that Impeachment is mentioned is to note that the president cannot pardon someone that Congress has Impeached and Convicted (Article II, Section 2).

                              Only the Senate can declare that there is enough evidence to warrant remove from office, per the Constitution. The House can do no more than Impeach, which is to pass articles to the Senate for the purpose of trial. The trial cannot do more than remove from office - if an illegal action has occurred, a separate indictment and trial is required to convict and punish. That is ALL the constitution says about impeachment. You are adding the rest. The parallel to civil law is inappropriate since no grand jury is involved in civil matters, AFAIK. The parallel is to criminal law and the roles are almost perfectly parallel. The Judiciary Committee functions as the DA, determining if articles of impeachment are to be recommended to the house. The House functions as the grand jury. The Senate is the courtroom complete with judge, jury, and (presumably) witnesses, investigations, and documentation. The House is not required to provide adequate evidence to convict. If that were true, there would be no need for a trial in the Senate.

                              While impeachment is often politically driven, it is still a legal proceeding and should be conducted as such. What the Senate did was a travesty of justice. Hopefully it will outrage the left and moderates enough to sweep Trump out of office in a landslide. It clearly will have no impact on Trump's base. Neither will Trump's parade of abuses of power and missteps in dealing with the current pandemic.
                              AKA “I don’t like the results, so it was unjust”

                              Thus after nearly 4 years you still can’t figure it out. Trump has done nothing different than presidents before him have, you’re just bitter that criminal Clinton and her criminal empire isn’t the ones doing what you accuse Trump as doing.
                              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                You're treating it like a civil matter when there are marked differences. When the House votes to impeach, it is not the equivalent of a civil indictment which marks the beginning of a case. Rather, per the Constitution, they are saying, "We have enough here to warrant the president's removal from office." But then when the House managers present their case to the Senate and admit in their opening arguments, "Actually, guys, we don't have enough here to warrant the president's removal from office," then what choice does the Senate have other than to vote "not guilty"?
                                Actually the House had plenty enough evidence to warrant the Presidents removal, which a few republican Senators admitted to after the fact, but not enough evidence to force this republican Senate to do the right thing and remove him rather than their doing the politically expedient thing for themselves and exonerating him. The House would have needed the equivelent evidence of hundreds of people witnessing him shoot someone on 5th ave in broad daylight in order to get this Republican Senate to convict. And even that might not have done the trick, certainly not for you.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                77 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                52 responses
                                267 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                83 responses
                                351 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X