The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
mtierney said:
There are mass protests and mass protests.
Which one are you for? Because in this case you can't have either, and if you can't have either then you've lost this portion of the 1st Amendment "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
With the ex-president under a criminal trial and an upcoming election - his thoughts are focused on . . . . . . the Oscars!
Jimmy highlight a recent Truth Social post which truly highlights T****'s narcissistic personality disorder and mental decline.
Surprise surprise, mtierney doesn't believe the first amendment protects views she disagrees with.
If I hadn’t watched this on TV myself, I wouldn’t have believed it wasn’t made up by evildoers!
ridski said:
Which one are you for? Because in this case you can't have either, and if you can't have either then you've lost this portion of the 1st Amendment "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Burning the American Flag is not done “peaceably” and is not an petition.
mtierney said:
ridski said:
Which one are you for? Because in this case you can't have either, and if you can't have either then you've lost this portion of the 1st Amendment "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Burning the American Flag is not done “peaceably” and is not an petition.
Texas v Johnson disagrees with you.
mtierney said:
ridski said:
Which one are you for? Because in this case you can't have either, and if you can't have either then you've lost this portion of the 1st Amendment "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Burning the American Flag is not done “peaceably” and is not an petition.
Apparently the Supreme Court disagreed with you about that, and as far as i can see their decision has not been reversed/superseded:
"Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
PS mtierney, probably you remember, as i do, a time when wearing clothes based on or made from the flag was also considered disrespectful, if not illegal. Times sure have changed on that.
Not sure how much New Guinea & Papua reaction to the ‘family anecdote’ has been reported over there. Our media have carried quite a bit, none of it positive for the USA. People are very angry. For one thing, it’s a very outdated stereotype not borne out by any other downed plane/crew remains found since the end of the War. For another, not a story bearing credibility for any of the Allied POWs kept there during WW2, or hiding to evade Japanese capture, or witnessed/experienced by missionaries and Aussie public servants working there over the last 90-odd years…
I’m not going to start quoting, but there were extremely strict customs around who could be eaten, usually by hill tribes. My cousins taught for quite a few years in northern Nui Guinea around independence; they lived with the ‘cannibals’.
mtierney said:
If I hadn’t watched this on TV myself, I wouldn’t have believed it wasn’t made up by evildoers!
Maybe President Biden thought his uncle was eaten by Jimmy Kimmel, when actually it was Al Pacino?
Only soccer teams that crash in the Andes are cannibals.
Also, the fine young ones.
From The Dispatch today — what’s going on in Manhattan succinctly put… “Juries decide questions of fact, not law. So what facts will the jury in Donald Trump’s Manhattan trial be asked to decide exactly? |
“Remember, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump in April 2023with 34 counts of falsifying business records, all stemming from payments Trump made to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen. Trump recorded these payments in business records as legal retainers, but they were in fact reimbursements to Cohen for hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels—a porn star who claims she had an affair with Trump in 2006—and others. Because the statute of limitations for misdemeanor charges related to these payments had run out, Bragg indicted Trump on felony charges—meaning he will also need to prove that Trump made the false entries to cover up another crime. |
“To secure a conviction, therefore, Bragg will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsely classified the payments to Cohen as a legal retainer because he believed that recording the real reason for the payments could implicate him in possible election or tax crimes. |
“This means that the jury will need to find—unanimously—that they were presented evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that: |
|
“Note that the prosecution does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump actually committed those other crimes, whatever they may be. It only needs to prove that Trump believed he may have committed other crimes and was creating these false entries to cover his tracks. |
“So how do Trump and his legal team stave off a conviction? |
“First, they can convince a juror—they only need one—that these really were routine legal payments to Cohen and not reimbursement for the hush money payments to Daniels. That’s going to be a hard row to hoe. Cohen is going to testify that there was no way he was paying Daniels $130,000 out of pocket and that he’s got plenty of receipts, as the kids say, but also literal receipts that he submitted for reimbursement. |
“But the prosecution does have one problem. Cohen is the star witness in the case—and he’s not the most reliable guy. Cohen has admitted to lying in court, pleaded guilty to lying to Congress, and evaded taxes for years. The defense will also have endless examples of Cohen lying to the media and public. In short, Cohen is a crook’s crook. |
“We can expect Cohen’s cross-examination to be brutal. As part of accepting a plea deal in 2018, for example, Cohen testified under oath that he had committed tax evasion. But last fall, he testified again—also under oath—that he had not committed tax evasion, which led to this fun little exchange: |
Lawyer: “So, sir, you lied at the time—you lied more than once in federal court, correct?” Cohen: “Correct.” |
“He’s every defense attorney’s dream for a main prosecution witness! |
“There’s also Cohen’s book deal. As the defense will no doubt put it, the guy destroyed his reputation within Trump World by flipping on his former client, so he switched teams to ingratiate himself to anti-Trump World, instead. In fact, proving the point a little too well, Cohen first pitched a pro-Trump book and said he was promised a $750,000 advance until his legal problems started mounting. His subsequent anti-Trump books have probably earned him more than $1 million. |
“Second, Trump’s team will try to convince the jury that Trump wasn’t falsifying the business records to conceal some election crime—he was doing it to conceal his infidelity to his wife! After all, if covering up a crime was the point, he didn’t do a very good job. We’re here at a criminal trial now, right? The payments were in the correct amount and they in fact went to Cohen. The paper trail wasn’t exactly hard for the prosecutors to find. The false part—the why the money was going to Cohen—was to prevent Melania, his third wife, from leaving him.” |
I see by your cartoon that you continue in your contempt of the rule of law.
Rachel Maddow did a piece this past Monday explaining why it took so long for the fraud case to come to trial. There was apparently enormous pressure put on by Trump's DOJ to stop any movement on the issue once Michael Cohen was convicted. Much of the source for this report comes from Geoffrey Berman, the former US Attorney for SDNY who was eventually fired by Trump.
I think most of this news is not new - Berman's book came out in 2022, and Maddow reported on it back then too - but it's worth it take another look at it now.
Here's the nut of it. Sorry for the caps. blame youtube.
SO IF YOU FIND YOURSELF WONDERING WHY ALLEGED CRIMES THAT HAPPENED IN 2016 ARE ONLY COMING TO TRIAL NOW, WELL, ONE OF THE REASONS IS THAT DONALD TRUMP'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUCCEEDED IN DELAYING AND ULTIMATELY STYMYING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGED CRIMES FOR WHICH DONALD TRUMP IS NOW EFFECTIVELY FACING IN NEW YORK STATE TRIAL.
I couldn't quote this from mtierney's post, but I wanted to point out that this paragraph is obviously horseshit.
“Second, Trump’s team will try to convince the jury that Trump wasn’t falsifying the business records to conceal some election crime—he was doing it to conceal his infidelity to his wife! After all, if covering up a crime was the point, he didn’t do a very good job. We’re here at a criminal trial now, right? The payments were in the correct amount and they in fact went to Cohen. The paper trail wasn’t exactly hard for the prosecutors to find. The false part—the why the money was going to Cohen—was to prevent Melania, his third wife, from leaving him.”
If Trump didn't want Melania to know about it, why did he wait for 10 years after his one-night stand to pay her off? Clifford had already gone to the tabloids in 2011, and Trump had Cohen threaten lawsuits if they published the story, but Trump waited another 5 years - one month before the election - to pay Clifford and force her to sign an NDA. If he really didn't want Melania to find out, he could have done that at any time in the 10 years after the event.
Re the Israel response yesterday…
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ronald-reagan-just-saved-israel-iran-missile-defense-7c6847d1
Excerpt..
“Reagan’s experience with the Strategic Defense Initiative has lessons for the U.S. today, with the unmissable irony that ardent SDI foe Joe Biden is pocketing its political benefit this week.
“Among the arguments against Reagan’s missile-defense plan was that it would “provoke a response” from the Soviets. SDI’s development got bogged down in the politics of arms-control negotiations between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. Reagan’s critics, including a virtual media consensus, said SDI would make our own nuclear-missile arsenal less vulnerable, increasing the Soviet Union’s incentive to launch a pre-emptive first strike. Reagan insisted he wasn’t trying to protect missiles but the U.S. population.
“If we have learned anything the past three years, it is that Mr. Biden is saturated in the don’t-provoke-a-response school of foreign policy.
“He says Israel should “take the win” because retaliation risks provoking a wider war. Shortly after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel, Mr. Biden allowed the expiration of a 2015 United Nations Security Council resolution prohibiting Iran from exporting missile and drone technology. However symbolic the resolution, the mullahs couldn’t have missed Mr. Biden’s stand-back approach.
“From the day Russia invaded Ukraine, Mr. Biden has slow-walked sending military technology to Kyiv—long-range missiles, Patriot air-defense systems, tanks, fighter jets—for fear it would provoke Vladimir Putin.
“Mr. Biden said he’d provide Ukraine with “whatever it takes, as long as it takes.” If he’d done that sooner than later, the technology-savvy Ukrainians could have avoided a frozen conflict and their support likely wouldn’t be stalled by Republican opposition in the House.”
mtierney said:
Re the Israel response yesterday…
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ronald-reagan-just-saved-israel-iran-missile-defense-7c6847d1
Excerpt..
“Reagan’s experience with the Strategic Defense Initiative has lessons for the U.S. today, with the unmissable irony that ardent SDI foe Joe Biden is pocketing its political benefit this week.
“Among the arguments against Reagan’s missile-defense plan was that it would “provoke a response” from the Soviets. SDI’s development got bogged down in the politics of arms-control negotiations between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. Reagan’s critics, including a virtual media consensus, said SDI would make our own nuclear-missile arsenal less vulnerable, increasing the Soviet Union’s incentive to launch a pre-emptive first strike. Reagan insisted he wasn’t trying to protect missiles but the U.S. population.
“If we have learned anything the past three years, it is that Mr. Biden is saturated in the don’t-provoke-a-response school of foreign policy.
“He says Israel should “take the win” because retaliation risks provoking a wider war. Shortly after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel, Mr. Biden allowed the expiration of a 2015 United Nations Security Council resolution prohibiting Iran from exporting missile and drone technology. However symbolic the resolution, the mullahs couldn’t have missed Mr. Biden’s stand-back approach.
“From the day Russia invaded Ukraine, Mr. Biden has slow-walked sending military technology to Kyiv—long-range missiles, Patriot air-defense systems, tanks, fighter jets—for fear it would provoke Vladimir Putin.
“Mr. Biden said he’d provide Ukraine with “whatever it takes, as long as it takes.” If he’d done that sooner than later, the technology-savvy Ukrainians could have avoided a frozen conflict and their support likely wouldn’t be stalled by Republican opposition in the House.”
you definitely have a knack for picking out inanity. with some history revisionism too.
a few points.
SDI was, without a doubt, one of the biggest government boondoggles in history
SDI's development didn't get bogged down "in the politics of arms-control negotiations". It got bogged down because it never came close to working.
SDI was cancelled in 1993. Work on Israel's Iron Dome started in 2006. SDI had nothing to do with Iron Dome. Completely different technologies. At best, maybe there was some knowledge carryover. Maybe.
First mtierney says that "Immigration should be a stand-alone bill", then she shares an article criticizing the pace at which the U.S. is sending aid to Ukraine. I think she is confused, though, as she keeps on pointing toward Democrats as the target of her dissatisfaction. Perhaps some excerpts from today's news will help clarify things for her:
A rare coalition of Democrats and Republicans — 316 — voted overwhelmingly to pass the procedural measure, known as a rule, to advance the four-part legislation Friday morning. In a sign of how tenuous this move is for Republicans, more Democrats — 165 — voted for the rule than Republicans — 151.
This is a pivotal moment for Johnson, who has held the speaker’s gavel for nearly six months while trying to navigate infighting among Republicans over disparate views on policy and tactics. But relying on the support of Democrats could cost Johnson his job as speaker as at least two Republicans — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — angry that he is advancing money for Ukraine without first locking down the Mexican border issue, are threatening to trigger a motion to vacate, the procedural motion to oust the speaker.
...
Ultimately, Johnson decided to advance funding to Ukraine, defending his decision Tuesday as “the right thing” to do. But he wasn’t able to muscle it through by relying on just Republican votes with his slim majority, having to depend instead on a significant number of Democrats because 55 members of his conference didn’t back Friday morning’s procedural measure.
Bipartisan House coalition advances Ukraine aid (Washington Post)
From the WSJ …
Sometimes, cancelling student loan debt just comes back to bite (not eat) American taxpayers.
mtierney said:
Sometimes a photo —or two — speak volumes….
No. He is being taken to court because there is sufficient evidence to charge him with felonies.
someone is a little obsessed with a mostly meaningless poll about the direction of the country.
I'm not saying who.
Jaytee said:
“Never fight uphill, me boys!’
general Lee was an insurrectionist, wasn’t he? Trump’s rallies are not the best places to learn American history…
Excerpt of Robert E. Lee statue dedication:
I am very happy to take part in this unveiling of the statue of General Robert E. Lee.
All over the United States we recognize him as a great leader of men, as a great general. But, also, all over the United States I believe that we recognize him as something much more important than that. We recognize Robert E. Lee as one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Remarks at the Unveiling of the Robert E. Lee Memorial Statue, Dallas, Texas. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project
Date: June 12, 1936
===========
IOW, historical viewpoints often change over time.
mtierney said:
From the WSJ …
Sometimes, cancelling student loan debt just comes back to bite (not eat) American taxpayers.
Are you able to understand just how crippling college cost are?
I have an acquaintance who spent 1.5 million to send his children to college and medical school. Nice that he had the money and great that the 2 kids who stuck with medicine (one shifted to investment banking) will be debt free and able to help with a shortage of doctors in this country.
How many young people don't even consider medicine because of crippling costs.
When I went to college, a student who borrowed money to cover 4 years tuition could reasonably expect to land a job where the starting salary was greater than the amount of their student loans.
That is no longer the case.
RealityForAll said:
Jaytee said:
“Never fight uphill, me boys!’
general Lee was an insurrectionist, wasn’t he? Trump’s rallies are not the best places to learn American history…Excerpt of Robert E. Lee statue dedication:
I am very happy to take part in this unveiling of the statue of General Robert E. Lee.
All over the United States we recognize him as a great leader of men, as a great general. But, also, all over the United States I believe that we recognize him as something much more important than that. We recognize Robert E. Lee as one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Remarks at the Unveiling of the Robert E. Lee Memorial Statue, Dallas, Texas. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project
Date: June 12, 1936
===========
IOW, historical viewpoints often change over time.
Ah, the good old days. When we couldn't be bothered to help refugees fleeing Nazi Germany.
Even so, it is bit jarring to read Roosevelt's remarks. Of course, he knew he had to keep the Southern Democrats in the fold.
RealityForAll said:
IOW, historical viewpoints often change over time.
Thank goodness.
There are mass protests and mass protests. The anti-Israel protestors (aka pro-palestinian protesters) blocking roads, bridges, campuses, etc across the United States are inflicting pain and inconvenience to hundreds of thousands of Americans going about their work and personal lives. This isn’t payback, this is anarchy.