Dog

Witness tampering

Recommended Posts

One for the legal beagles...

Why is it that the prosecution is allowed to offer inducements for testimony favorable to their case such as immunity deals, dropping or reducing charges etc? If a defendant offers inducements for testimony favorable to their case it's a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

One for the legal beagles...

Why is it that the prosecution is allowed to offer inducements for testimony favorable to their case such as immunity deals, dropping or reducing charges etc? If a defendant offers inducements for testimony favorable to their case it's a crime.

That's easy. The first is a search for the truth, the second is an attempt to conceal it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

That's easy. The first is a search for the truth, the second is an attempt to conceal it.

I was hoping for something that's not faith based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try reading the statute being applied to Paulie Whoopsie and his Russian pal. Look for the part about “corruptly persuade.”  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Try reading the statute being applied to Paulie Whoopsie and his Russian pal. Look for the part about “corruptly persuade.”  

 

Got a cite? Or give us a Cliffs notes version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Truth" like fish can be slippery. People will say anything.Most of us have been around long enough to know how little separates good guys from bad. In many cases there is no distinction at all. Hanging judges and all that. FBI? Depends on who's asking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

One for the legal beagles...

Why is it that the prosecution is allowed to offer inducements for testimony favorable to their case such as immunity deals, dropping or reducing charges etc? If a defendant offers inducements for testimony favorable to their case it's a crime.

I'm not a lawyer but I think the basis is actually in the 5th amendment against self incrimination.  In the case of the state witness, the tacit assumption is that the witness has, in fact, done something for which they could be held accountable.  In other words, the witness is already involved whereas Witness Tampering as a crime essentially involves potentially changing testimony on someone who otherwise has no reason to be involved other than their own civic duty.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Dog said:

Got a cite? Or give us a Cliffs notes version.

Paulie Whoopsie’s latest indictment is linked in the Drip thread. Go have a look at Count Six or Seven. 

Here’s the indictment. 

download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

One for the legal beagles...

Why is it that the prosecution is allowed to offer inducements for testimony favorable to their case such as immunity deals, dropping or reducing charges etc? If a defendant offers inducements for testimony favorable to their case it's a crime.

Why is it that Conservatives are only for law and order when it doesn't affect them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Paulie Whoopsie’s latest indictment is linked in the Drip thread. Go have a look at Count Six or Seven. 

Here’s the indictment. 

download

OoOhhh, click bait

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Dog is saddened to see corrupt pieces of shit that conspired with Russia in hot water. 

 

Queue whatabout it 3. . .2 . . 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Why is it that Conservatives are only for law and order when it doesn't affect them?

Don’t confuse good republicans for conservatives. Conservatives have principles and utilize power to advance them. Republicans just want power at any expense. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A real  conservative would not remain silently loyal to this Republican party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

One for the legal beagles...

Why is it that the prosecution is allowed to offer inducements for testimony favorable to their case such as immunity deals, dropping or reducing charges etc? If a defendant offers inducements for testimony favorable to their case it's a crime.

Think of it as "sprinkling a little justice on their faces".  I recall someone here using a similar phrase to justify torturing people for information once or twice. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Think of it as "sprinkling a little justice on their faces".  I recall someone here using a similar phrase to justify torturing people for information once or twice. 

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Paulie Whoopsie’s latest indictment is linked in the Drip thread. Go have a look at Count Six or Seven. 

Here’s the indictment. 

download

When I heard that the judge was delaying the decision of revoking his bail for a week I was initially stunned. Doesn't work that way for revoking bail on us little people. But then I thought that if the game is pressure...giving him an extra week to sweat might be a good idea, one whispered to the judge by the prosecutor...perhaps??

 Just a WAG.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark K said:

When I heard that the judge was delaying the decision of revoking his bail for a week I was initially stunned. Doesn't work that way for revoking bail on us little people. But then I thought that if the game is pressure...giving him an extra week to sweat might be a good idea, one whispered to the judge by the prosecutor...perhaps??

 Just a WAG.  

I think Paulie Whoopsie’s response to the Motion was due this past Friday. Putting the hearing on the following Friday gives the judge time to read the materials so that she can rule on the spot next Friday. Something tells me Paulie will have plenty of time to ponder his predicament after the hearing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mark K said:

When I heard that the judge was delaying the decision of revoking his bail for a week I was initially stunned. Doesn't work that way for revoking bail on us little people. But then I thought that if the game is pressure...giving him an extra week to sweat might be a good idea, one whispered to the judge by the prosecutor...perhaps??

 Just a WAG.  

Hmmm, and Mueller asked for a delay when the indicted Russian's lawyers asked to see the evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paulie goes to jail PERMANENTLY on Friday; he will never leave. All of Cohen's papers are due to be released the same day, which means that Cohen will follow shortly unless they both start singing. So it will be a propitious day for the government and a terrible day for everyone associated with this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Paulie goes to jail PERMANENTLY on Friday; he will never leave. All of Cohen's papers are due to be released the same day, which means that Cohen will follow shortly unless they both start singing. So it will be a propitious day for the government and a terrible day for everyone associated with this case.

No way this gets to next weekend without a full court press of distraction. They haven’t given Dog any bullshit to work with since Spygate, to the point where he is having to freelance stuff. It may be a Spygate revival, but there will be a bullshit storm in the forecast for Thursday or Friday.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

No way this gets to next weekend without a full court press of distraction. They haven’t given Dog any bullshit to work with since Spygate, to the point where he is having to freelance stuff. It may be a Spygate revival, but there will be a bullshit storm in the forecast for Thursday or Friday.  

Speaking of bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

No way this gets to next weekend without a full court press of distraction. They haven’t given Dog any bullshit to work with since Spygate, to the point where he is having to freelance stuff. It may be a Spygate revival, but there will be a bullshit storm in the forecast for Thursday or Friday.  

Stormy needs a new lawyer.  To wake that one up again.

Manafort may well, deservedly, go to jail but the serious financial and lobbying charges still predate his 5 month stint on  the campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I'm not a lawyer but I think the basis is actually in the 5th amendment against self incrimination.  In the case of the state witness, the tacit assumption is that the witness has, in fact, done something for which they could be held accountable.  In other words, the witness is already involved whereas Witness Tampering as a crime essentially involves potentially changing testimony on someone who otherwise has no reason to be involved other than their own civic duty.

 

 

Sol, councilor...If you could spare us your bullshit for a moment, is this on target?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Stormy needs a new lawyer.  To wake that one up again.

Manafort may well, deservedly, go to jail but the serious financial and lobbying charges still predate his 5 month stint on  the campaign.

There you go Doggy-styling again. Mueller's authority is to investigate Russian influence in the election. Manafort had Russian contacts when he began working for a campaign. Happened to be Trump's, but it could have been any of them. Mueller is following his authorized mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RKoch said:

There you go Doggy-styling again. Mueller's authority is to investigate Russian influence in the election. Manafort had Russian contacts when he began working for a campaign. Happened to be Trump's, but it could have been any of them. Mueller is following his authorized mandate.

Mueller's marching orders are, IIRC, to investigate and prosecute ALL crimes he may uncover during the course of his investigations. Only fair, as that was the mandate given the one they sicced on Clinton. That one morphed all the way from a bad real estate deal to a blow job in the Oral Office. 

 It's easy to picture Mueller and the best forensic accountants in the US gubmint uncovering money laundering when we are talking folks like Manafart, but it's not a given this issue will in any way implicate Trump himself. I believe some of the reports of Kushner's activities to be somewhat more likely to result in Trump's ass doing a perp walk, but that's no given either. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prosecution offers a lighter sentence to an individual who tells the truth and doggy considers that witness tampering?  Really?

 

Actually,  he's on to something. Maybe people will say anything to stop the water boarding. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Mueller's marching orders are, IIRC, to investigate and prosecute ALL crimes he may uncover during the course of his investigations. Only fair, as that was the mandate given the one they sicced on Clinton. That one morphed all the way from a bad real estate deal to a blow job in the Oral Office. 

 It's easy to picture Mueller and the best forensic accountants in the US gubmint uncovering money laundering when we are talking folks like Manafart, but it's not a given this issue will in any way implicate Trump himself. I believe some of the reports of Kushner's activities to be somewhat more likely to result in Trump's ass doing a perp walk, but that's no given either. 

 

Not all crimes, for example he had to refer Cohen's crimes to SDNY. But the judge has ruled the Manafort investigation complying with Mueller's authorization. I suspect the next targets are Jr, Kushner, and Ivanka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RKoch said:

Not all crimes, for example he had to refer Cohen's crimes to SDNY. But the judge has ruled the Manafort investigation complying with Mueller's authorization. I suspect the next targets are Jr, Kushner, and Ivanka.

  I think he's multitasking, it's just that some cases take longer to put together than others.

 My main point is many assume Manafart is getting the screws turned to flip on Trump, but it could easily be to flip on some Russian mobsters. His high profile renders witness protection non-viable.

 That boy's ass is in a wringer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lying Malarky said:

The prosecution offers a lighter sentence to an individual who tells the truth and doggy considers that witness tampering?  Really?

 

Actually,  he's on to something. Maybe people will say anything to stop the water boarding. ...

How do we know a prosecution witness is telling the truth? If the prosecutor is offering a deal there is an incentive to give the prosecutor what he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

How do we know a prosecution witness is telling the truth? If the prosecutor is offering a deal there is an incentive to give the prosecutor what he wants.

Welcome to the group that feels rampant prosecutorial power is a BAD thing. But like the Fiscal Responsibility Express, I have a feeling you’ll get off the train in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

One for the legal beagles...

Why is it that the prosecution is allowed to offer inducements for testimony favorable to their case such as immunity deals, dropping or reducing charges etc? If a defendant offers inducements for testimony favorable to their case it's a crime.

They are only able to offer these inducements to people that are already guilty of crimes.

Is the defendant offering inducement to somebody who is guilty of a crime related to the case?

In any event, the gov't can do all kinds of things that private citizens cannot. Like, print money, wage war, levy taxes, build moon rockets.

Actually a few private citizens are getting almost up to the level of being able to build their own moon rockets. Maybe they'll start doing all those other things too. Would this be good IYHO?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

How do we know a prosecution witness is telling the truth? If the prosecutor is offering a deal there is an incentive to give the prosecutor what he wants.

Corroborating evidence? Burden of proof? A jury of one's peers?

 

Why would anyone plead guilty to the unproven lesser crime if there is no fear of being proven guilty of the more serious crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Stormy needs a new lawyer.  To wake that one up again.

Manafort may well, deservedly, go to jail but the serious financial and lobbying charges still predate his 5 month stint on  the campaign.

Perhaps. But it seems Cohen was Trump’s new bag man, since Manafort was too close to the campaign. Plus, Manafort was offering Russian oligarch & Putin ally Deripaska briefings on the campaign, perhaps trying to settle his multimillion $ debt to him. 

Are you suggesting that the US should not prosecute someone who offered insider knowledge to the Russians on the inner workings of a US presidential campaign for financial gain? Was his lying about these contacts to the FBI a crime worth consideration? Do you actually give a shit about US national security?

And if Manafort knew about other crimes committed by the nascent administration, shouldn’t they be investigated as well? 

Only traitors want these scum bags to get away with their crimes. Many posters here can’t handle the truth: they are blinded by partisan desire and by the inability to comprehend that they’ve been conned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

In any event, the gov't can do all kinds of things that private citizens cannot. Like, print money, wage war, levy taxes, build moon rockets.

Actually a few private citizens are getting almost up to the level of being able to build their own moon rockets. Maybe they'll start doing all those other things too. Would this be good IYHO?

-DSK

Private citizens are already 'printing' money too. Bitcoin for example.....

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

How do we know a prosecution witness is telling the truth? If the prosecutor is offering a deal there is an incentive to give the prosecutor what he wants.

We cannot know in either situation - that is why both the prosecution and the defence get a chance of questioning witness credibility on the stand. Immunity deals offered by the prosecution are rendered void if the witness lies or changes their statement from what they earlier swore to be the truth. They are not rendered void by the prosecution losing the case. The same cannot be said for deals made by someone looking only for a non-guilty verdict.

Seems you're grasping even more desperately at those straws the closer Mueller gets to (even more) convictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

No way this gets to next weekend without a full court press of distraction. They haven’t given Dog any bullshit to work with since Spygate, to the point where he is having to freelance stuff. It may be a Spygate revival, but there will be a bullshit storm in the forecast for Thursday or Friday.  

You're right. Trump needs a major distraction, preferably from loyal supporters spreading shit that has no basis outside their own imagination. Something like...

6 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

I’m guessing Trudeau promised not to comment negatively until AFTER the NK US Summit.  Listening to not just Trump, but his key advisers that seems to be at the heart of the anger.  Making the US and Trump look weak right before the NK summit.   It makes sense and is not something a friend would do.   Why not a week from now - after the Korean Summit?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Welcome to the group that feels rampant prosecutorial power is a BAD thing. But like the Fiscal Responsibility Express, I have a feeling you’ll get off the train in 2020.

My issue here is not prosecutorial misconduct although the practice of offering inducements to prosecution witnesses is ripe for it. I was looking for the legal rationale for allowing the prosecution to engage in a practice that for the defense would be criminal. So far on one has offered a satisfactory explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

My issue here is not prosecutorial misconduct although the practice of offering inducements to prosecution witnesses is ripe for it. I was looking for the legal rationale for allowing the prosecution to engage in a practice that for the defense would be criminal. So far on one has offered a satisfactory explanation.

Several explanations have been offered. Your satisfaction is not required for them to be acceptable to others.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bent Sailor said:

Several explanations have been offered. Your satisfaction is not required for them to be acceptable to others.

Yours was particularly weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Dog said:

My issue here is not prosecutorial misconduct although the practice of offering inducements to prosecution witnesses is ripe for it. I was looking for the legal rationale for allowing the prosecution to engage in a practice that for the defense would be criminal. So far on one has offered a satisfactory explanation.

So you think the defense action is the same as the prosecution action? 

 

How? Why?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yours was particularly weak.

41 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Several explanations have been offered. Your satisfaction is not required for them to be acceptable to others.

You missed the salient point. I've highlighted it for you. Now, get your "bla bla bla" over with so the adults can talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Private citizens are already 'printing' money too. Bitcoin for example.....

FKT

Don't forget credit cards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

My issue here is not prosecutorial misconduct although the practice of offering inducements to prosecution witnesses is ripe for it. I was looking for the legal rationale for allowing the prosecution to engage in a practice that for the defense would be criminal. So far on one has offered a satisfactory explanation.

It goes to the difference between encouraging someone to tell the truth and encouraging someone to lie. 

You’ll never understand that, nor will you try. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have an adversarial judicial system, which means that the Prosecutor decides what is in his client's (the state's) best interests. The defense attorney and the defendant are authorized to make decisions which impact their outcome, to work to protect their best interests. But the prosecutor is not just a barrister, technically skilled in making an argument that is made for them, they are granted prosecutorial discretion. In other words, they are imbued with the power of deciding which charges to pursue, which cases to take to trial and how forcefully to investigate and pursue a particular crime.

This latitude makes the prosecutor fairly powerful, which is why there is recognition of a political aspect to the job, and although our elections aren't a perfect vehicle for making prosecutors responsive to the people's needs, they are the system in place. 

So given that both the prosecutor and the defendant are authorized in an adversarial system to "make deals" to protect their best interests, our system just puts the bargaining that normally goes on behind closed doors in other countries into a framework that legitimizes it. Prosecutorial discretion is settled US law. So-called "conservatives" questioning the system now is adorable.

Just because a crime is committed does not mean charges need to be filed... if someone breaks into a car that's a crime. But if the window was broken to save a dog that is overheating inside, the crime will not be prosecuted. Protecting an animal's life is seen as of greater benefit to society than protecting a pane of glass from being broken. If Paul Manafort is given immunity from ten financial crimes and of lying to the FBI and in exchange gives up methods of communications, documents relating to communications with superiors in the campaign, or other participants in collusion with Russian oligarchs, then the prosecutor has exercised his/her discretion. They've made the decision that immunity on these charges is worth just charging Manafort with other crimes, but leaving him with his house, for example. As long as society's best interests are kept foremost in the decision making, the prosecutor has fulfilled his job mandate. Manafort still goes to jail, and other crooks are charged & perhaps successfully prosecuted thanks to the decision.

A defense lawyer cannot induce a witness to lie. That's inducing perjury. They can pay a witness for reasonable expenses, but they have to be careful not to tread past some point at which a prosecutor could decide to charge the lawyer with bribery and witness tampering. The "reasonable" amount, therefore, is going to be higher in civil cases than in criminal cases... because the opposing lawyer in a criminal case has prosecutorial discretion! The payments by the defense cannot be predicated on a successful outcome of the trial, it must be a strict quid pro quo for honest testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

We have an adversarial judicial system, which means that the Prosecutor decides what is in his client's (the state's) best interests. The defense attorney and the defendant are authorized to make decisions which impact their outcome, to work to protect their best interests. But the prosecutor is not just a barrister, technically skilled in making an argument that is made for them, they are granted prosecutorial discretion. In other words, they are imbued with the power of deciding which charges to pursue, which cases to take to trial and how forcefully to investigate and pursue a particular crime.

This latitude makes the prosecutor fairly powerful, which is why there is recognition of a political aspect to the job, and although our elections aren't a perfect vehicle for making prosecutors responsive to the people's needs, they are the system in place. 

So given that both the prosecutor and the defendant are authorized in an adversarial system to "make deals" to protect their best interests, our system just puts the bargaining that normally goes on behind closed doors in other countries into a framework that legitimizes it. Prosecutorial discretion is settled US law. So-called "conservatives" questioning the system now is adorable.

Just because a crime is committed does not mean charges need to be filed... if someone breaks into a car that's a crime. But if the window was broken to save a dog that is overheating inside, the crime will not be prosecuted. Protecting an animal's life is seen as of greater benefit to society than protecting a pane of glass from being broken. If Paul Manafort is given immunity from ten financial crimes and of lying to the FBI and in exchange gives up methods of communications, documents relating to communications with superiors in the campaign, or other participants in collusion with Russian oligarchs, then the prosecutor has exercised his/her discretion. They've made the decision that immunity on these charges is worth just charging Manafort with other crimes, but leaving him with his house, for example. As long as society's best interests are kept foremost in the decision making, the prosecutor has fulfilled his job mandate. Manafort still goes to jail, and other crooks are charged & perhaps successfully prosecuted thanks to the decision.

A defense lawyer cannot induce a witness to lie. That's inducing perjury. They can pay a witness for reasonable expenses, but they have to be careful not to tread past some point at which a prosecutor could decide to charge the lawyer with bribery and witness tampering. The "reasonable" amount, therefore, is going to be higher in civil cases than in criminal cases... because the opposing lawyer in a criminal case has prosecutorial discretion! The payments by the defense cannot be predicated on a successful outcome of the trial, it must be a strict quid pro quo for honest testimony.

Best answer yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It goes to the difference between encouraging someone to tell the truth and encouraging someone to lie. 

Best answer yet. Direct, to the point, and not incorrect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, another 505 sailor said:

Best answer yet. Direct, to the point, and not incorrect.

 

Because the prosecution always seeks truth and the defense always lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

Because the prosecution always seeks truth and the defense always lies.

“Nor will you try.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

Who said that? 

You did, when you wrote:

7 hours ago, another 505 sailor said:

Best answer yet. Direct, to the point, and not incorrect.

In response to: “It goes to the difference between encouraging someone to tell the truth and encouraging someone to lie. “

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our system of justice does not assume that either the prosecutor or the defense is “seeking the truth”. At best, it seeks justice, but through the messy reality of adversarial representation. May the best argument & presentation win. It gives certain advantages to the state and the defense, and then lets the individuals involved thrash it out. 

The discretion of making deals is one of the advantages given to the state. It’s not a lofty (& ultimately futile) ideal such as truth, it’s just rules of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2018 at 10:12 PM, Dog said:

How do we know a prosecution witness is telling the truth? If the prosecutor is offering a deal there is an incentive to give the prosecutor what he wants.

Unsubstantiated questions about law enforcement are dangerous...

Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Unsubstantiated questions about law enforcement are dangerous...

Sometimes.

Questions cannot be unsubstantiated. You're doggiestyling again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2018 at 1:14 PM, Ishmael said:

That's easy. The first is a search for the truth, the second is an attempt to conceal it.

not always

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Dog said:

Questions cannot be unsubstantiated. You're doggiestyling again.

Sure they can.  Look at the questions you asked about Spygate.  There was no evidence there to support such questions being raised, you just pulled them out of the blue.  You were not too concerned about the danger of asking such questions then.  

So what is the difference between the dangers you perceive when asking questions about law enforcement in the context of dead black folks and questions about law enforcement in the context of the Russia investigation?  

It can't be Trump, because you have told us that you do not support him, right?  It can't be that because you wouldn't tell us a fib about that, would you?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Sure they can.  Look at the questions you asked about Spygate.  There was no evidence there to support such questions being raised, you just pulled them out of the blue.  You were not too concerned about the danger of asking such questions then.  

So what is the difference between the dangers you perceive when asking questions about law enforcement in the context of dead black folks and questions about law enforcement in the context of the Russia investigation?  

It can't be Trump, because you have told us that you do not support him, right?  It can't be that because you wouldn't tell us a fib about that, would you?  

I did not support his candidacy but he is the president and as such I support him. I remember when it was all the rage around here for leftist to ask right wingers if they supported Obama or if they are going to work to undermine him.

I hope Trump's presidency is successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

I did not support his candidacy but he is the president and as such I support him. I remember when it was all the rage around here for leftist to ask right wingers if they supported Obama or if they are going to work to undermine him.

I hope Trump's presidency is successful.

So you were saying that making unsubstantiated allegations against law enforcement put lives in danger?  That is exactly what you have been doing when you repeat the efforts to discredit the FBI for The Party. Thank you for clarifying the different ways you view it for black folks killed by police and Republicans under investigation for conspiring with foreign governments to rig elections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

So you were saying that making unsubstantiated allegations against law enforcement put lives in danger?  That is exactly what you have been doing when you repeat the efforts to discredit the FBI for The Party. Thank you for clarifying the different ways you view it for black folks killed by police and Republicans under investigation for conspiring with foreign governments to rig elections. 

Nonsense...the circumstances justifying an investigation of certain FBI behavior is hardly unsubstantiated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Nonsense...the circumstances justifying an investigation of certain FBI behavior is hardly unsubstantiated.

Unlike statistics about propensity of Black folk to end up dead when interacting with law enforcement, your efforts to discredit the FBI in the many threads I identified have turned up nothing but your disparate and irreconcilable positions. 

You are only fooling yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Unlike statistics about propensity of Black folk to end up dead when interacting with law enforcement, your efforts to discredit the FBI in the many threads I identified have turned up nothing but your disparate and irreconcilable positions. 

You are only fooling yourself. 

The IG (who obviously found circumstances justifying an investigation) will issue his report on the FBI's investigation into Hillary's private server mess tomorrow.

We will see if your dismissive "Hillary used email" characterization is accurate or just more of your doggiestyling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

The IG (who obviously found circumstances justifying an investigation) will issue his report on the FBI's investigation into Hillary's private server mess tomorrow.

We will see if your dismissive "Hillary used email" characterization is accurate or just more of your doggiestyling.

Changing the subject won’t change your hopelessly disparate positions. You might fool someone other than yourself but probably not. It’s hard for people to forget your posts as long as they keep being quoted. And they will be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

Changing the subject won’t change your hopelessly disparate positions. You might fool someone other than yourself but probably not. It’s hard for people to forget your posts as long as they keep being quoted. And they will be. 

Bla...bla...bla...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Bla...bla...bla...

Is it hard to remember your positions?  Or do you just parrot dear leaders daily talking points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Is it hard to remember your positions?  Or do you just parrot dear leaders daily talking points?

No it not, just read what I write and ignore the doggiestyled distortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

No it not, just read what I write and ignore the doggiestyled distortions.

Most of what you write is doggystyled distortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's image in Columbia:  Do you think Baldwin's image is better?

 

image.png.7379ffdf2359bb284d0931aefa3d5de4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Most of what you write is doggystyled distortions.

No its not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

No its not.

actually, your writing is kinda the definition...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

actually, your writing is kinda the definition...

No, its not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dog said:

No, its not.

Sure it is.  There are jelly fish with more of a spine than you have.   You demonstrate your hypocrisy and double standards on a daily basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

Bla...bla...bla...

A joke I saw had the two doors into the respective restrooms labeled:

Bla

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clove Hitch said:

Sure it is.  There are jelly fish with more of a spine than you have.   You demonstrate your hypocrisy and double standards on a daily basis. 

Bla...bla...bla...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bla...bla...bla...

That's all you ever say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

That's all you ever say. 

No it's not all I say, but I've adopted it as a standard response to vapid personal shit.  It's easy and on the same level as the post to which I am responding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the term "doggystylin" was directly drawn from the repetitive ludicrousness of Dogs posts.

Was I misinformed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎06‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 2:35 PM, Dog said:

Questions cannot be unsubstantiated. You're doggiestyling again.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I thought the term "doggystylin" was directly drawn from the repetitive ludicrousness of Dogs posts.

Was I misinformed?

Nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Dog using the term is the absolute pinnacle of absurdist irony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

So Dog using the term is the absolute pinnacle of absurdist irony?

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2018 at 5:00 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

It goes to the difference between encouraging someone to tell the truth and encouraging someone to lie. 

You’ll never understand that, nor will you try. 

There is no D in "truth"'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

There is no D in "truth"'.  

Both parties have a hell of a lot of swamp-draining to do. I've got no claim to being a political historian, but it would not surprise me a bit if history ends up viewing this era as the most corrupt govt, ever. That's all three branches of Federal govt., nearly all state govts, and possibly even the minor leagues of local govt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Both parties have a hell of a lot of swamp-draining to do. I've got no claim to being a political historian, but it would not surprise me a bit if history ends up viewing this era as the most corrupt govt, ever. That's all three branches of Federal govt., nearly all state govts, and possibly probably even the minor leagues of local govt.

Remember Clear Lake. Russel Perdock does not seem to be an anomaly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now