What's the matter with Donald Trump.

[EODguy]

Originally Posted by Maruzo

Not the best reply for my post. As my post is clearly about an incompetent president giving yet another useless interview full of lies and narcissistic behavior.



Your reply to my post has no bearing or any reasonable argument since it doesn't address the actual interview at all!

True Maruzo.

I apologize but the comments were (from me) that people where using their hatred for Trump to (fuck that other guy Flynn ) and your post just happened to pop up with the "look how stupid, etc. Trump is" and I should not have posted as if you were trying to use the things Trump was doing wrong as a reason to support screwing Flynn over and violating his Rights.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[bcredliner]

I think it is wrong for Trump or Barr to pardon or reduce Flynn's sentence. If there is evidence he was railroaded there should be an appeal and a new jury trial. If Trump or Barr are involved it is logical to assume their action is bias. The reason to pardon or commute his sentence is to get him out of jail without risking the new evidence is bogus or can't be proved and so new evidence confirming Flynn's guilt doesn't surface.

[EODguy]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

I think it is wrong for Trump or Barr to pardon or reduce Flynn's sentence. If there is evidence he was railroaded there should be an appeal and a new jury trial. If Trump or Barr are involved it is logical to assume their action is bias. The reason to pardon or commute his sentence is to get him out of jail without risking the new evidence is bogus or can't be proved and so new evidence confirming Flynn's guilt doesn't surface.

On the Flynn issue only I want to say that Trump has not pardoned nor reduced Flynn's sentence. At this point what has happened is that Flynn has withdrawn his plea and the DoJ has dismissed the case.

But the judge has said he doesn't care that the case is dismissed, he wants to charge Flynn with perjury for (pleading guilty previously and withdrawing that plea)

This is the issue.

A judge is the referee only, not a player. Yet in this case the referee has said even if the game isn't played because neither team is going to show he will still punish the one (Flynn) who the judge has made disparaging remarks about/to in court that normally gets a member of the court recused if not disbarred.

Also as a side note a pardon is issued after a conviction and Flynn has NOT been convicted yet.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

On the Flynn issue only I want to say that Trump has not pardoned nor reduced Flynn's sentence. At this point what has happened is that Flynn has withdrawn his plea and the DoJ has dismissed the case.

But the judge has said he doesn't care that the case is dismissed, he wants to charge Flynn with perjury for (pleading guilty previously and withdrawing that plea)

This is the issue.

A judge is the referee only, not a player. Yet in this case the referee has said even if the game isn't played because neither team is going to show he will still punish the one (Flynn) who the judge has made disparaging remarks about/to in court that normally gets a member of the court recused if not disbarred.

Also as a side note a pardon is issued after a conviction and Flynn has NOT been convicted yet.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

Oopsie, wrong case. My mistake. Flynn confessed twice to wrong doing and plead guilty. A guilty plea is viewed as the same think as a conviction.The last step was sentencing based on his plea bargain. Barr didn't want to risk allowing it to go back to court to evaluate the new evidence so with a very unusual interference by an Attorney general he set up a process that would justify his intent to dismiss the case. IMO of course.

I can't get past Flynn's 2 confessions. I am aware his defense team is claiming he was pressured based on threats of prosecution of his son but he knows the ropes and has representation that does even if per chance he does not. Rule one-never admit guilt to something you didn't do. Same usually applies if one is guilty. He pleaded guilty against his defense team recommendation. IMO he believed he would be convicted and he plea bargained to get his son off the hook who was probably also guilty. That sounds like the behavior of a general and a father.

Just a non political opinion based on what happened rather than the people involved.

[EODguy]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

Oopsie, wrong case. My mistake. Flynn confessed twice to wrong doing and plead guilty. A guilty plea is viewed as the same think as a conviction.The last step was sentencing based on his plea bargain. Barr didn't want to risk allowing it to go back to court to evaluate the new evidence so with a very unusual interference by an Attorney general he set up a process that would justify his intent to dismiss the case. IMO of course.



I can't get past Flynn's 2 confessions. I am aware his defense team is claiming he was pressured based on threats of prosecution of his son but he knows the ropes and has representation that does even if per chance he does not. Rule one-never admit guilt to something you didn't do. Same usually applies if one is guilty. He pleaded guilty against his defense team recommendation. IMO he believed he would be convicted and he plea bargained to get his son off the hook who was probably also guilty. That sounds like the behavior of a general and a father.



Just a non political opinion based on what happened rather than the people involved.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sally-y...ary-committee/

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sally-y...ary-committee/

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

What is the reason for the link? Is it that you agree with Trump's statement?

[crystalworks]

Guys, don't fret. When the Dems retain the House, get a majority in the Senate, and take the White House it will be their turn to violate the Constitution and civil rights. Then we can start a "what is wrong with X" thread for that.

I weep that there are supporters of either party in their current forms. Neither wants to do what is best for the country.

[Maruzo]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

Guys, don't fret. When the Dems retain the House, get a majority in the Senate, and take the White House it will be their turn to violate the Constitution and civil rights. Then we can start a "what is wrong with X" thread for that.

I weep that there are supporters of either party in their current forms. Neither wants to do what is best for the country.

It's interesting that you guys continue to think in terms of political parties instead of personal choices.

Categorizing someone as either party without getting a definitive answer from him/her is similar to judging someone solely from the color of their skin or their cultural background.

Like I said before, this is not the right way to argue a point. You don't classify people into a particular political party just by their response to a particular politician.

I don't think of BC as just a democrat nor do I think of EOD as just a republican.

I read their posts and respond accordingly. I don't assume that they're going to respond a certain way just because I think they are pro dems or GOP.

At least I bear that in mind when I think it through.

[crystalworks]

Originally Posted by Maruzo

It's interesting that you guys continue to think in terms of political parties instead of personal choices... At least I bear that in mind when I think it through.

I'm not arguing any point. Other than that the parties are broken for the reasons bcredliner mentioned above, which I totally agree with. Between the extremes controlling gov't, the extremes controlling social media, and the extremes controlling main stream media our gov't is in gridlock.

My response was not to label anyone party-line voting Democrats (or Republican) though I can see how it could be taken as such. It was to point out that no matter how much we all get our panties in a bunch over how big a moron Trump is, or how corrupt he is... the next administration might only be marginally better. Nobody wants to do what needs to be done. Increase revenue (taxes) and decrease spending (gov't waste and social spending). Either party suggesting either of those paths is committing political suicide, so we have quagmire. A downward spiral following the path of republics who have come before us.

[Maruzo]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

I'm not arguing any point. Other than that the parties are broken for the reasons bcredliner mentioned above, which I totally agree with. Between the extremes controlling gov't, the extremes controlling social media, and the extremes controlling main stream media our gov't is in gridlock.

My response was not to label anyone party-line voting Democrats (or Republican) though I can see how it could be taken as such. It was to point out that no matter how much we all get our panties in a bunch over how big a moron Trump is, or how corrupt he is... the next administration might only be marginally better. Nobody wants to do what needs to be done. Increase revenue (taxes) and decrease spending (gov't waste and social spending). Either party suggesting either of those paths is committing political suicide, so we have quagmire. A downward spiral following the path of republics who have come before us.

You are most likely right. But this system, though subpar at the moment, has endured for the last 200+ years. That's about as long as most of the monarchy before it. As a republic I think the greek and rome before cesar would not necessarily fare better.

Afterall, we have the examples set by thousands of years worth of history lessons before establishing this one.

But like all good things, it must end eventually.

How much longer is anybody's guess.