Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2016, 11:00 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 10:49 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 12:00 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Both you and BnW are attacking a claim I have never made, namely that his refusal to testify means that Clinton is guilty. Go ahead and quote me if you believe that I said those words.

Fair enough, my apologies.

I never claimed you made that claim. What I said was you can't use hid refusal as evidence of anything. And, if you're going to come back and say that wasn't your point, then what was your point? Why bring it up in a thread where you attack Clinton if it was not to attack Clinton?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
23-06-2016, 11:09 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 10:54 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 09:26 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Yeah and I vehemently hate shinzo abe and aso, does that mean I hate all japanese politicians, or that I just so happen the politicians I hate are japanese.

You don't go on and on and on about them as being corrupt.
Your stupid analogy is bullshit.

No it isn't. The difference being that I do complain about it a lot, just no here. On top of that you missed the point. The point is just because he complains two politicians he hates that happen to be women, doesn't mean he hates women politicians. Maybe if he was like, women shouldn't be politicians, sure. In fact, you also assume vosur doesn't like any female politicians. For all we know you could like most he has seen, but the two he hates just annoy him that much.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
23-06-2016, 11:22 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 10:32 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  Yes, it's embarrassing but we don't hold it against you much. Everyone needs a hobby. Laugh out load
I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that it's embarrassing for people like you that a foreigner is better informed about your country's politics than you are. Laughat

(23-06-2016 10:38 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Are you suggesting that no government report could contain errors?
Come on, we're not arguing about an abstract hypothetical here. I mean, of course it's possible for a government report to contain errors, but it would be a huge stretch to say that it's possible for the government to erroneously claim that top secret information was found on her server. An accusation like that is not made lightly and its legitimacy is supported by the State Department's continuous refusal to comply with FOIA requests made by people and organizations who wish to read said e-mails. As far as I understand it, the government normally censors sensitive information with black bars in classified documents prior to releasing them, but in this case, the State Department is refusing to reveal any part of the e-mails to the public due to the highly sensitive nature of the information contained in them. Lest we forget, "top secret" is a label that is applied to "information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security".

(23-06-2016 10:38 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Sworn testimony, of course.
That makes sense. We won't hear any sworn testimony until there is a formal trial though, correct?

(23-06-2016 10:38 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  "We'll give 'em a fair trial, and then we'll hang 'em!"

Did you read the part where I wrote, "I personally think she is guilty"? Given that, why do you feel it's necessary to make this superfluous point?

It's as if you need to argue this point even though I agree with you ... odd.
Hmm, my apologies. I think I simply misunderstood your post then.

(23-06-2016 10:38 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  According to the article you yourself posted, that immunity was limited. If the questioning went outside the topicality of the immunity, he is certainly entitled to refuse self-incrimination.
That's a valid point in general, but again, it seems a big stretch in this case to suggest that all 100+ questions fell outside the boundaries of his immunity deal. Is it theoretically possible? Yeah, I suppose it is. It just seems far more likely that he's refusing to co-operate with the authorities as a matter of principle rather than as a matter of careful consideration regarding the scope of the questions. The reason I say that is because I read an article about the deposition the other day which reported that the IT specialist simply read the same prepared statement from an index card over and over again in response to the questions that were posed to him. Have you seen the TV show House of Cards? The scene in which Raymond Tusk is being questioned in front of a government committee is oddly reminiscent of what happened here. I'll see if I can upload the relevant clip on YouTube later today.

(23-06-2016 10:38 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Heywood was more concerned with being contrary than being curious. Smile
I know, I was just being a cheeky brat. Wink

(23-06-2016 10:49 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Fair enough, my apologies.
It's all good, no harm done.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 11:31 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 09:27 AM)Vosur Wrote:  ...I don't drink any alcohol...

OK, so where are you really from? It can't be Germany.

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
23-06-2016, 11:32 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 11:00 AM)BnW Wrote:  I never claimed you made that claim. What I said was you can't use hid refusal as evidence of anything. And, if you're going to come back and say that wasn't your point, then what was your point? Why bring it up in a thread where you attack Clinton if it was not to attack Clinton?
Fair enough. The reason I initially brought it up was because GirlyMan said that there are no signs of an upcoming indictment for Clinton. I asked him for his definition of a "sign" in response and then provided him with the immunity deal that was offered to Clinton's IT specialist as an example of a sign. Most people who commented on this point seem to disagree that it is one, which is fine with me, but then I have to ask what would be a legitimate example of a sign in their eyes.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 11:36 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 09:32 AM)Vosur Wrote:  In reference to something GirlyMan said earlier in this thread, it's quite embarrassing that a German living in the Czech Republic is more informed about US politics than many US citizens. Just listen to these mindless drones.







I was going to say something like this myself. This is an international forum, and it really bothers me when people try to stifle political commentary by non-Americans.

I don't know enough about German or Czech politics to have an opinion, but if I did, I would not be shy about expressing that opinion on this forum. And I have no problem with Vosur (who indeed appears to be more knowledgeable about American politics than many Americans -- including some on this forum) expressing his opinions here -- even though I don't always agree with them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
23-06-2016, 11:44 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 11:32 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 11:00 AM)BnW Wrote:  I never claimed you made that claim. What I said was you can't use hid refusal as evidence of anything. And, if you're going to come back and say that wasn't your point, then what was your point? Why bring it up in a thread where you attack Clinton if it was not to attack Clinton?
Fair enough. The reason I initially brought it up was because GirlyMan said that there are no signs of an upcoming indictment for Clinton. I asked him for his definition of a "sign" in response and then provided him with the immunity deal that was offered to Clinton's IT specialist as an example of a sign. Most people who commented on this point seem to disagree that it is one, which is fine with me, but then I have to ask what would be a legitimate example of a sign in their eyes.

I think a sign of an indictment will be an actual indictment. Given the political nature of this, speculation is useless. I also question the accuracy of media reports. The FBI isn't going to talk to the press.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
23-06-2016, 12:55 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 10:37 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 08:16 AM)CosmicRaven Wrote:  Vosur and I are good friends. He's really nice once you get to know him.

Oh I'm absolutely sure you are.

I personally don't see how he has been prejudiced. I'm willing to see examples.

I dont know if you're being sarcastic or not. Laugh out load We really are friends, though. Smile Maybe it sounds unlikely? I dunno.

☆☆☆
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 01:08 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 11:22 AM)Vosur Wrote:  That's a valid point in general, but again, it seems a big stretch in this case to suggest that all 100+ questions fell outside the boundaries of his immunity deal.

In American jurisprudence, when a witness is extended limited immunity and then invokes his Fifth Amendment right in a hearing, either lawyer can object to the invocation and ask the presiding judge to rule on the propriety of said invocation.

The fact that in this case such an invocation was upheld (either explicitly or implicitly by not being challenged) over one hundred times means exactly that: those questions were outside the scope of the immunity deal, your incredulity notwithstanding. Had the immunity deal covered those questions, the presiding judge could have forced the witness to answer the questions or be jailed for contempt of court.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
23-06-2016, 01:22 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 01:08 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 11:22 AM)Vosur Wrote:  That's a valid point in general, but again, it seems a big stretch in this case to suggest that all 100+ questions fell outside the boundaries of his immunity deal.

In American jurisprudence, when a witness is extended limited immunity and then invokes his Fifth Amendment right in a hearing, either lawyer can object to the invocation and ask the presiding judge to rule on the propriety of said invocation.

The fact that in this case such an invocation was upheld (either explicitly or implicitly by not being challenged) over one hundred times means exactly that: those questions were outside the scope of the immunity deal, your incredulity notwithstanding. Had the immunity deal covered those questions, the presiding judge could have forced the witness to answer the questions or be jailed for contempt of court.
That's a solid argument. I'm afraid I don't have a rebuttal to it, so I'll have to concede that it was a moot point.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: