Trump and Russian sanctions

russian-billboard

 

Analysis & Opinion

Article by: Vitaliy Portnikov

The visit to Ukraine of American congressmen who promised not to cancel but to strengthen sanctions against the Russian regime encouraged those who fear the clumsy first steps of the new US administration on the international stage. However, should one be confident that the positions of a few senators will be crucial for the Republican majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives? That an absolutely unprecedented alliance will be formed between Republicans and Democrats in an attempt to oppose the possible conciliatory position of the Donald Trump administration?

If such an alliance is indeed formed — not in intentions but in actual voting — this could become as newsworthy in the political life of the United States as the selection as head of state of a businessman without government experience and with no previous participation in any elected government body. For that reason, one should not discount anything. The election of Trump is a terrible unbalancing of the entire US system of government and an automatic crisis for the institutions. And no one, including Trump himself, knows how this crisis will be surmounted.

And, most importantly, no one can determine the dimensions of this crisis just as no one, including Trump himself, knows the true intentions of the American president. And that includes the question of sanctions against Russia.

The new sanctions, which have been imposed by outgoing President Barack Obama in response to Moscow’s interference in the election processes in the United States, could concern Trump not so much because of his desire to improve relations with Putin as because of doubts cast on his own legitimacy. If one agrees that Moscow interfered in the elections process — and did so successfully — then one has to recognize that American citizens voted for the Republican candidate under the influence of Russian actions and “revelations.” Who would like that? Not Trump! But when it becomes a question about other sanctions tied to the war against Ukraine, their cancellation can no longer be tied simply to the desire to eliminate unpleasant complications in bilateral relations.

The lifting of these sanctions is a matter for agreements. The same agreement that Trump may intend to conclude with Putin and the details of which are often discussed today in international media. But when the agreement that Trump wants to conclude with Putin is discussed, people never think about the answer to another question. Does Putin want to make a deal with Trump?

Perhaps, from our point of view or even the point of view of the new American president, Putin needs such an agreement to stabilize the situation in his own country and to strengthen his authority on the international arena. But Putin himself may consider Trump as someone who owes his election victory to him. Who should not be negotiating agreements but who, instead, should be giving thanks. Who should not be imposing conditions but who, instead, should be making attractive offers. For Putin, Trump is simply the first secretary of the Washington Municipal Party Committee. His party. And if the elected American president still does not realize it, he will soon.

The most interesting question is what he will do when he confronts reality and not just his own image of the world. We are discussing a possible confrontation between Trump and an outraged Congress. However, an alliance between the president and Congress against Putin is also possible, not to a lesser but to a greater degree.

Translated by: Anna Mostovych
Source: Newsru.ua

Tags: , ,

  • Oknemfrod

    >… a businessman without government experience and with no previous participation in any elected government body … The election of Trump is a terrible unbalancing of the entire US system of government and an automatic crisis for the institutions.<

    I'm more than surprised that Vitaly Portnikov, clearly an astute guy, has actually written this. Apparently, in his view Trump's election is "a terrible unbalancing" because he is "without government experience and with no previous participation in any elected government body". This is utter nonsense. Even if the adjective "terrible" were omitted, there would be not a slightest ground for this assertion. With it, the statement becomes a silly exagerration. And the reason why has nothing to do with Trump, his background, and personal qualities.

    If the creators of the Constitution, profound thinkers, had merely suspected that electing a president with no prior political or government experience could unbalance "the entire US system of government", they would have sure as heck stipulated what kind of occupational background a candidate must have. Instead, they included only three provisions: (i) a natural born citizen, (ii) 35 years old or older, (iii) resident of the US for 14 years or more. Everything else was left to the people and due election process.

    The reason why the Founders saw no reason for any other criterion is obvious and lies precisely in the balances already included in the Constitution and deemed by them powerful enough to guard "the entire US system of goverment" in case if the people should decide to elect even a malevolent person or an utter fool.

    • Mephisto

      imho, another criterion should be 65 years young or younger. These 70+ years geronts at the treshold of dementia are not good either. Age does not mean wisdom, certainly not with people with a personality disorder such as Trump. Such old presidents may not survive the next 10 years or even their own presidency. The decisions that they are making will impact young people. If we can discriminate against the young, why not against the old? Ideal age for a president is 40-60 years old.

      In fact, if voting right is restricted to 21+ (18+), why not <65? Old people do not understand the world. Brexit or Trump were elected by the olds. Why should the olds care about Britain or EU if they will be dead in 10 years? Why should they make such important decisions for the young who are going to live with their decisions?

      https://tomfernandez28.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/capture128.png?w=670
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/us-election-how-age-race-and-education-are-deciding-factors-in-t/

      • Oknemfrod

        Anyone may have one’s own humble opinion on the matter, but pigs will have started flying before any such opinion will result in the proposal of another constitutional amendment, particularly one impossible to ratify because of its in-you-face discriminatory nature. The Constitution was made very hard to amend for good reason, and amending it just to essentially stipulate that in this day and age a healthy 66 year old person is unfit to serve as president is too asinine to be deemed serious.

        p.s. “Ideal age for a president is 40-60 years old” is a totally arbitrary assertion.

      • Turtler

        “imho, another criterion should be 65 years young or younger. These
        70+ years geronts at the treshold of dementia are not good either.”

        Voting is not regulated on the basis of who is Good or not. It is on the basis of who is legal.

        “Age does not mean wisdom, ”

        Voting is about freedom, not wisdom. Better to be tried by 12 jurists than one philosopher-king.
        “Such old presidents may not survive the next 10 years or even their own presidency. ”

        In which case their Vice Presidents- who presumably were picked to be a fitting standin for the people the public elected- will take up the reins of power. Because the system has evolved to take that into effect.

        “Old people do not understand the world.”

        Riiiiiight.

        Because I’m seriously supposed to believe that my Grandfather and Grandmother- who remain astute and untouched by dementia to this day- do not understand the world but someone who literally believes a psychological impossibility (that Trump is a Russian Manchurian Candidate) like you does?

        Blaming the Electorate is the answer of the lazy and irresponsible.

        ” Brexit or Trump were elected by the olds. Why should the olds care about Britain or EU if they will be dead in 10 years?”

        BECAUSE UNTIL THEY DIE *THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN THEM* AND WITH THOSE DECISIONS!

        ” Why should they make such important decisions for the young

        who are going to live with their decisions?”

        Because they are the previous generations of that Nation’s voters, taxpayers, servicemen and people who put their livelihoods into the country! They made the world that those “young” step into!

        You may not Like Trump- heck, I personally don’t- but trying to destroy democracy in the name of protecting it by hacking away at the electorate’s shape until it is more pleasing to you is morally and practically repugnant.

        IT ALSO DOES NOT WORK, as Louis Napoleon’s Coup shows. It only erodes the legitimacy of a democracy or republic.

        • Oknemfrod

          Amen.

        • Brent

          Demenia and being batsh*t crazy are not just subject to age for Presidential candidates
          >Sarah Palin currently 52
          >Rick Santorum currently 59
          >Michelle Bachman currently 60
          >Gary Johnson currently 63
          all would have met the age threshold you suggest but would have been lunatics in office.

          • Turtler

            A: I wasn’t the one suggesting the age threshold, I was fighting against it.

            B: Frankly, let the voters decide who is or is not a lunatic. And frankly after dealing with the wonderful world of Africa and Russian bureaucrats, most candidates- even Johnson- seem reasonable.

      • Czech Mate

        agreed with the age thing, very much so.

        • Turtler

          Why?

          What happens when we disenfranchise the law abiding elderly- who have been paying into and working for the social contract the longest- because “Hey, they might not always vote the way we like!”?

          • Czech Mate

            I’m talking about highly responsible and demanding posts such as presidents and the like. The age can and is an objective problem there.

            Psychologists know that with age, it’s usually bad traits that amplify, perhaps it’s to do with deteriorating health which brings the “pessimism”.

            Think of it as a driver of the public transport bus-what is more dangerous?
            Not talking about denying seniors their spots in society, just in the critical functions.

          • Turtler

            I can understand that, and I agree it can be a problem regarding psychology and even physiology. The issue I have with it is that the Founders largely accounted for that (After all, Washington was 68 at the time he was first elected, and by the time he chose not to continue he was 67).

            And I honestly don’t think the benefits we might gain from weeding out people who might be mentally compromised would be worth removing the most experienced cadre of the population from high office.

            Particularly since there are counterbalances meant to incentivize even the party that has the President getting them out of office if they are unable of fulfilling it.

          • Czech Mate

            fair enough, but let’s say 70 would be the threshold in the election year, nothing wrong with that in my book.

          • Turtler

            Still disenfranchises those over 70, who might well be in sober mind (my grandparents still are) and capable of discharging it.

            I’m not saying the concern isn’t real, but I think attempts to jam something in to stop it will be worse than the cure. Though that might just be my opinion.

            Though I can also understand such a thing being put for military positions, perhaps with a waiver system to allow exemptions to be made based on merit.

      • Brent

        Although Drumpf is the oldest “elected” President, the <65 threshold also would have barred Hillary Clinton (69) and Bernie Sanders (75) from running for President

    • veth

      The utter fool has been elected………….

      • Turtler

        Better a fool than an utter felon who is also a fool.

        • Forewarned

          Charges?

        • Forewarned

          But let us just take your argument as is. I would say “better the felon than a traitor to his country.”

          • Turtler

            Already detailed several of the charges that by all means should have been put up, as did Bill whittle, As did James Comey, as did Rudy Guliani. You didn’t seem to be interested in rebutting them.

            Name a single bit of treason that Donald Trump has done which was worse than the-at best- deep neglect of her duties Clinton showed during her time as SoS.

            Because treason actually means something (as does felon), and utterly shady or even corrupt deals (like doing business with the Castro family’s gulag island) is not treason.

          • Forewarned

            I did rebut them. Very few crimes are strict liability and require some sort of mens rea or criminal intent. Good luck to anyone who can prove that. Since Clinton didn’t win the election, the vast majority of the people are slowly forgetting about her regardless of how much supporters of Cheeto Jesus want to keep it on the front burner.

            You like code sections. Tell me, given your penchant for applying such zealously, why the following shouldn’t apply to Trump:

            18 U.S.C § 2381 – Treason
            Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
            (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

          • Turtler

            “I did rebut them. Very few crimes are strict liability and require
            some sort of mens rea or criminal intent. ”

            And I’ve already established that the laws meant to punish farq ups regarding classified information are strict liability with no need to prove mens rea. Or to be more specific, the Criminal Code already established it. I just copy/pasted it.

            And you seem happy to try and ignore it. Because apparently any slob on the internet with enough of a knack for research can learn more than a supposed lawyer who finds research in this case to be uncomfortable.

            “You like code sections. Tell me, given your penchant for applying such zealously, why the following shouldn’t apply to Trump:”

            Nuh-uh, moron. You don’t get to have it both ways. If you want me to waste more of my time trying to educate a supposed lawyer who is *remarkably* ignorant about the laws governing things like classified data or treason, you’re going to have to actually make the charges.

            Point to things Trump or his lot have done and say here, this applies.

            “18 U.S.C § 2381 – Treason
            Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them
            aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere,”

            Oh goodie. You really are that biased and stupid.

            For the record moron: there’s a reason why Treason is very tightly defined (even I haven’t accused Clinton of it because while I think there is a decent chance she is guilty of it, I do not *know* and there is still reasonable doubt).

            For the record: there is no grounds whatsoever in which to claim that Donald Trump has levied war against the US alongside a foreign power. Because that term is exactly what it means. Committing military actions against the US, either through armed action (like the various “Tory” units in the Revolution or Confederate forces) or spying and sabotage against the US. Considering that Russia is not even nominally our enemy as the Founders understood it, the only one that would apply would be the second part. To which point I say: “Ok, where has Trump spied or sabotaged the US?”

            No, what you reallly want to do i the second part. The more vague “providing aid and comfort” thing, because that sounds to a less knowledgeable or sufficiently dishonest person what Trump’s butt kissings of Putin are. But they are not.

            Because what the Founders described as an “Enemy” was in the former bit. Someone levying war on the United States, either in direct military action or through covert. The providing aid and comfort is meant to address those collaborating with enemy personnel doing that, for instance the people that owned the safe houses John Wilkes Booth fled through during the last days of his life.

            And there is an *astounding* amount you can do without it qualifying as providing aid and comfort. This includes praising the enemy or members of the enemy during a time of war (as Sherman did on occasion). This includes speaking in favor of peace with the enemy or presumed enemies, as VP Wallace did during the brief interlude between “Shoot on Sight” and Pearl Harbor.

            Heck, it even includes LOBBYING IN CONGRESS For the US to go further and compromise with the enemy for a less favorable peace deal, as John Dickenson did during the debates about whether to negotiate with the CINC British North America or declare independence.

            The crucial tie between all of these is that they can be put forth by loyal Americans (as indeed Dickenson and Wallace were- though both were naive, and the latter gobsmackingly so). They are not actions that can only, exclusively be to benefit the enemy at the expense of the US, and would not be persecuted as such (as Lincoln persecuted rather few “Copperhead Democrats” in the North) without proof that their agenda was taken in direct loyalty to that hostile power.

            So if you want to persecute Trump under that clause, you had better provide very damning, very direct proof not only that he has ties to Putin or ties to People Putin has ties with, but that his actions were CONSCIOUSLY meant to further Russian ambitions at the expense of the US. Because that is the Mens Rea necessary for a treason conviction on those terms.

            Going off of my gut feeling, I don’t think you will find one. For the same reason nobody has been able to find evidence of Trump shorting his own companies out of loyalty to another. He’s a blowhard and egotist, but that same trait makes him less likely to be a Quisling.

            So there you have it. But then I doubt you will matter.

            Considering you have ignored the very nature of the law to demand a Mens Rea requirement when there is no such one in the laws mentioned about classified data, and claim the investigations on Clinton regarding Benghazi and the rest found “Nothing.”

            But you want to continue this? Present real charges next time that you claim fits this. Now Chop Chop!

          • Forewarned

            Let’s descend into some of you’re many squirting, Tutler.

            The only thing you’ve “established” turtle, is that you don’t know how to read criminal statutes correctly.

            I don’t get to have it both ways, but you expect that don’t you turtle, and then sit there with straight- face and tell how you great moral system allows it? I don’t think so.

            As far as reading the treason statute, you seem to read them so fast that you miss their meaning. I’m not going to teach you statutory interpretation anyway.

            The beautiful part about all this is that Clinton doesn’t matter and her alleged “crime” is highly technical interpretation-wise from a lessor known area of the law. However, King Cheeto is in focus and his alleged malfeasance is treason, which everyone understands. It’s a powerful moment here. Clinton isn’t even mentioned really in the media, at least not in a meaningful way.

            I skipped what I know would have been a corrosively skewed version of 19th Century American history. It’s just not interesting enough to me to see a silly little pompous man blather on about something or another. I’m sure you formed other self-important ideas regarding everything but that’s just not intetesting to me so I’d rather not.

          • Turtler

            “The only thing you’ve “established” turtle, is that you don’t know how to read criminal statutes correctly.”

            if your best argument is lying like a psychopath, it’s an indication your argument has been shattered.

            Also, for all your accusations about not reading criminal statutes correctly, you’ve not bothered to actually correct or refute me on that. You’ve just alleged.

            “I don’t get to have it both ways, but you expect that don’t you
            turtle, ”

            I don’t and I haven’t. If you could prove that I had, I would have expected you to bring it up.

            “As far as reading the treason statute, you seem to read them so fast that you miss their meaning. I’m not going to teach you statutory interpretation anyway.”

            Even if we allow on the odd chance that you could (which I don’t believe), you’re too late. That is one of the benefits of having a lawyer for a father. I don’t have to rely on the condescending mercy of an anonymous, self-proclaimed expert on the internet.

            But why don’t you try teaching other people, who may be misled by my supposedly erroneous interpretations?

            “The beautiful part about all this is that Clinton doesn’t matter and her
            alleged “crime” is highly technical interpretation-wise from a lessor
            known area of the law.”

            It’s really not that technical. Treason decisions are among the oldest in the Common Law system that helped form the root of the US legal system. If a bunch of roleplayers on line can look up precedent and study court cases in their free time, there’s no excuse for a supposed lawyer to be this ignorant.

            This is an appeal to complexity, a logical fallacy.

            “However, King Cheeto is in focus and his alleged malfeasance is treason,”

            The problem is tha key word: alleged.

            You haven’t even gotten to the point of alleging a criminal incident or action. All you’ve done is allege it happened.

            In contrast to this, where the actions Clinton and her staff took are not “merely” alleged, most of them are proven. And the existence of SCIF information outside of SCIF facilities (among others) is far more than an “allegation.”

            As is the contradicting testimony under oath provided by her and the FBI.

            What you want to do is muddy the water to the point where it is just an allegation, and so your random claim that Trump is a traitor has the same weight as this. But it doesn’t work.

            “I skipped what I know would have been a corrosively skewed version of 19th Century American history. ”

            Much of it was 18th century, stupid.

            And considering you claim to be a lawyer, knowing the *precedent* is kind of important.

            “It’s just not interesting enough to me to see a silly little pompous man blather on about something or another. ”

            Pot, meet kettle.

            At least I provide sources so that I am not the only one blathering in my posts. That is more than you can say.

            And frankly, what’s more pompous? My actions, or your purposefully elusive, angry pin pricks without ever touching on the core matters?

            “I’m sure you formed other self-important ideas regarding everything but that’s just not intetesting to me so I’d rather not.”

            List of things that Forewarned does not find interesting:

            1. Legal Precedent
            2. The Actual words in the Legal Code
            3. Actual allegations for what he said.
            4. Actual, chargeable counts of treason.
            5. My comments me.

            You flatter me, bad sir.

          • Forewarned

            Psychopath? Now you’re a psychologist, eh Squirtler?

            You are trying to have it both ways. You urge an overly-broad and zealous intrepretation of statute when it cuts against Clinton but when it comes to Trump, not so much. This is partisan fuelled hypocrisy which shouldn’t convince anyone. I don’t know what function such hypocrisy has other than to soothe your own logically and intellectually overly-stretched beliefs because it certainly doesn’t influence my beliefs at all.

            Let’s dwell a bit on your ability to intrepret statutes, that according to you, having a lawyer as a father grants you (by genetics or osmosis, you don’t indicate). The sub (f) part of the applicable statute states that, and I paraphase–if there is a release of classified information because of gross negligence, it shall be a crime if the incident is not reported immediately. Now, Squirtler, read carefully, instead of blowing through it and spewing an overly wordy “counter-argument” as is your want to do . Gross negligence is NOT the intent for the crime as was your contention before, but rather the conscious decision not to report it. So no strict liability, no gross negligence, but good ol’ criminal intent as I continously maintained.

            Your intrepretation of the treason statute is likewise flawed. You reverse your zealous intrepretation of statute now that we are talking about you lord and savior, King Cheeto the Traitor. The statute in question says:

            18 U.S.C. § 2381 – Treason
            Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them
            aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere…

            Your response:

            “there is no grounds whatsoever in which to claim that Donald Trump has levied war against the US alongside a foreign power.”

            Which is all fine and dandy Squirtler, except that you completely blew through the ” *OR* adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…” part. This is either intellectually dishonest or demonstrates very poor reading comprehension skills but who am I to say?

            It’s 19th Century, I briefly read Copperheads, Boothe, Lincoln, etc., and I DIDN’T READ IT completely as stated above. After reading it now, my fears were confirmed in that it mainly focuses on the 19th Century.

            Lastly, your list of what I do not find interesting is actually interesting from a human psychological standpoint because after arguing with me quite loquaciously about most of the 7 things you cite, you insist I’m not interested in them. This is quite an argument indeed.

          • Turtler

            “Psychopath? Now you’re a psychologist, eh Squirtler?”

            No, I’m not. I have however done some passing volunteer work in the same building as them. And that involved reading up a bit on mental conditions so that the uneducated volunteers (like myself) didn’t get completely out of our depths.

            So I know a *bit* more than the lay man, and I have worked with a couple clinically diagnosed psychopaths. And you are acting quite like them.

            “You are trying to have it both ways. ”

            No, I’m not.

            This entire paragraph is a glorified “I know you are but what am I?” from you. It is the equivalent of the psychopath saying they didn’t throw the feces smeared on the wall, you did. No matter what the camera shows.

            It is thus a waste of my time to dissect.

            “Let’s dwell a bit on your ability to intrepret statutes, that
            according to you, having a lawyer as a father grants you (by genetics or
            osmosis, you don’t indicate).”

            Another very dumb, stupid lie. And for the record, it is neither.

            You said in a previous quote:

            “I’m not going to teach you statutory interpretation anyway.”

            To which I replied:

            “Even if we allow on the odd chance that you could….. you’re too late. That is one of the benefits of having a lawyer for a father. I don’t have to rely on the condescending mercy of an anonymous, self-proclaimed expert on the internet.”

            In short, you were too late to “teach my statutory interpretation” because somebody already did. My Father. Not through genetics, or through osmosis, but through… you know.. *teaching.* Literally walking me through some things with great patience.

            “The sub (f) part of the applicable statute states that, and I paraphase–if there is a release of classified information because of gross negligence, it shall be a crime if the incident is not reported immediately.”

            Which it was not, as we know.

            “Now, Squirtler, read carefully, instead of blowing through it and spewing an overly wordy “counter-argument” as is your want to do . ”

            Like you have?

            “Gross negligence is NOT the intent for the crime as was your contention before, but rather the conscious decision not to report it.”

            Which still applies. Clinton and her staff only reported it after they became the subject of an FBI investigation. And they further did not report the presence of work related emails that were not turned over.

            So yes strict liability, yes gross negligence.

            .”Which is all fine and dandy Squirtler, except that you completely
            blew through the ” *OR* adheres to their
            enemies, giving them aid and comfort…” part.”

            No, I didn’t, stupid.

            In fact I spent most of the time I spent replying to why Trump is not a traitor on the second part rather than the first.

            To quote:

            “No, what you reallly want to do i the second part. The more vague
            “providing aid and comfort” thing, because that sounds to a less
            knowledgeable or sufficiently dishonest person what Trump’s butt
            kissings of Putin are. But they are not.”

            And I went on for a few paragraphs.

            While I spent approximately 500 characters and one pargraph rebutting the “Levies war against them” bit. But I spent just under 1,500 characters and three paragraphs rebutting the “adheres to their enemies” part.

            That isn’t blowing through. But then you should have carefully read before making accusations.

            And that IS intellectually dishonest and demonstrates astounding poor reading comprehension on your part.

            “but who am I to say?”

            Indeed, considering you are the one actually guilty of those things.

            And that’s why I say you are not really interested in the truth. Because you can’t even get *what I myself typed* right. Even when the evidence is right there. And the proof is right here.

            And that’s the real thing: while you accuse myself and people like Bill Whittle of obfuscation, you’re the real practitioner of it. My comments may be long, but they’re not long for the sake of being long and I actually read every word. You don’t.

            And the reason why is evident to me now.

            ““If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the
            facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table””

            You don’t have either facts or law. And you either know it, or you act like you do.

          • Forewarned

            Stayed at a Hampton Inn Squirtler? You’re still not a psychologist.

            Osmosis usually indicates by learning but that’s just a trivial fallacy as far as your concerned. You do not argue in a way that the law usually finds persuasive. Succinctly is the argument you’ve never made and from authority, your fake news sources do not qualify as such.

            “Which it was not, as we know.”

            Of course not Squirtler. Pot.Kettle.Black as you say? Why was it not? Care you explain? Didn’t think so.

            “Clinton and her staff only reported it after they became the subject of an FBI investigation.”

            You revealed another issue with your bogus fantasy prosecution Squirtler, is she guilty of what her staff does? You just don’t get it.

            “So yes strict liability, yes gross negligence.”

            You do realize you presented no counter argument there right?

            “No, I didn’t, stupid.”

            Yes you did, stupid. Word count doesn’t make argument Squirtler, otherwise the sheer amount of pablum you produce would guarantee you won won every contest. It is so sad for you that that is not the case. I’m sorry.

            You have neither the law nor the facts to pound. There are very few bright-line rules in the law. It’s all grey area. Just like life. Failing to get to the point only wastes time and you have wasted a colossal amount of mine.

          • Turtler

            “You’re still not a psychologist.”

            Indeed, THAT IS WHAT I SAID. I am not a psychologist, I merely know a *little bit* more about it than the average lay person.

            But you’re still behaving like a psychopath.

            “Osmosis usually indicates by learning but that’s just a trivial
            fallacy as far as your concerned. ”

            Hogwash.

            Osmosis usually indicates *unconscious* or *uninstructed* learning. That is why it is called Osmosis and not “Active Transport” or you know, “instruction.” As seen here, for example:

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/osmosis

            At no place- either in genetics or osmosis- did you account for directed, intentional, conscious lessons.

            But that is a trivial fallacy and oversight on your part.

            “You do not argue in a way that the law usually finds persuasive. ”

            I can fully imagine that. However, I don’t have to. I leave that to the professionals who can be expected to pick this case over. But I have an excuse.

            I’m a casual internet commentor with the willingness to do research. You’re the guy who claims to be a lawyer on their profile, and yet your arguments are mostly ad hominems and obfuscation. Which are also usually not persuasive before the law. You have not bothered to address a faction of what the video brought up, or to claim a specific case of Trump being a traitor.

            Do you think a court will find merely asserting he is to be convincing?

            “Succinctly is the argument you’ve never made ”

            Being succinct is not one of my strong suits, but it is also not high on my list of priorities. Which is fitting when discussing matters of law.

            “and from authority, your fake news sources do not qualify as such.”

            Which are still much better than you claiming that crimes that are strict liability are no such thing. Also, the director of the FBI testifying under oath (which he was not when he said not to recommend charges) is hardly not an authority.

            After all, he is quite LITERALLY an authority, a figure bound with legal power to act regarding this.

            “Of course not Squirtler. Pot.Kettle.Black as you say? Why was it not? Care you explain?”

            I already explained. However….

            “Didn’t think so.”

            Which just underlines the poor quality of your thinking. If there is something you should have learned about me in these long comments, it is that I am quite willing to explain.

            https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

            Please tell me how the refusal to disclose the presence of the classified information after November 26th 2013 and Feb 13th, 2015 do not fall under Sub part (f).

            “You revealed another issue with your bogus fantasy prosecution
            Squirtler, is she guilty of what her staff does? ”

            Yes, she is.

            As their employer, someone who used the server frequently, and ultimately had to answer questions under oath about it and their conduct she is. It was her duty- as their boss and someone trained in the handling of classified information- to KNOW that this was not kosher. And to either prevent them from setting it up, or to when realizing the danger it posed (as she clearly did when she claimed to have turned over all work related emails falsely) she KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that this was illegal.

            As such, she is responsible. She knew or should have known, and she did not report the danger this classified information faced on the server. That’s called Being Responsible.

            “You just don’t get it.”

            Pot Kettle Black.

            “You do realize you presented no counter argument there right?”

            Just because you do not want to admit it does not make it so.

            “Yes you did, stupid. Word count doesn’t make argument Squirtler, ”

            Neither do mindless insults.

            You claimed I- and I quote-

            “completely blew through the ” *OR* adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…” part.””

            You gave no such complaint at the time about my significantly shorter response to the “Levies war” part. Presumably you ether did not think I ‘completely blew through” it, or you did not bother to claim so at the time.

            And the part you claim I “completely blew through” is far longer and in more depth than that.

            So while word counts don’t make arguments, they DO serve as proof about what I blew through or not.

            “otherwise the sheer amount of pablum you produce would guarantee you won won every contest. ”

            You do me too much credit.

            “It is so sad for you that that is not the case. I’m sorry.”

            Apparently, you seem to think artfully dodging any rebuttals and making scathing insults will win you any contest.

            It doesn’t work like that. You made a claim without proof, I proved that was not the case (and even you didn’t bother complaining), and all you can do is shout “NOH!” Without proof.

            “You have neither the law nor the facts to pound.”

            I know you are but what am I?

            (Your projection is showing.)

            “There are very few bright-line rules in the law. It’s all grey area.”

            The fact that the bright lines exist in the rules of law among the grey area says something. You just don’t want to admit it. You seem to define law down to sophistry.

            That Trump is a traitor if you say so, and can wheedle your way through enough acidic quips to do it. It might have worked for Cicero, but not for you.
            “Failing to get to the point only wastes time and you have wasted a

            colossal amount of mine.”

            I can concede that.

            However, I have not wasted nearly as much time as you have. Because I actually have a point to arrive at.

            You do not.

          • Forewarned

            So the saying “to learn by osmosis” isn’t a thing? To LEARN by osmosis? Hogwash you say? Do you realize how stupid you sound in your attempts to prove your nonsense at all costs?

            My arguments are obfuscation? I think this is called projection, but I didn’t stay at a Hampton Suites or am I a psychologist. (Now reading further, you mention projection, beat me to it but you’re probably projecting again, so lol).

            She’s criminally liable for her staff? NO SHE ISN’T YOU STUPID PHUCK. Tell me where that is ever the case outside of a RICO case or regulatory offense? You don’t know anything about the law. Stop pretending.

            I shouldn’t let someone as dense, as such a liar, bourne out by your stupid, intellectually inferior alt-right viewpoint that you deperately fling a gigantic amount of sh*t against the wall and see what sticks, get me the least bit perturbed. You will not be allowed to.

            The fact of the matter, dumbazz, is that everyone is focused on Trump. Write a million lines about Clinton if you please, no one will care. She lost the election. It would be like me going on about Romney the election before this one.

            The focus is on your hero, Don the Con, Dirtbag Donnie, Traitorous Trumpie. As much as you desperately wish you were still focusing on Clinton, you just can’t do it. Time to move on junior. That’s the winner right there. No one cares about Clinton anymore, except you desperate little liars that want the focus off Trump and all his many warts.

            Sorry, you lose. Every last lie that he goes back on, every broken promise, every time this POS tries to put an enemy of our country above his own countrymen, will register with the people. What do you have to say about that other than “yes sir.”

            You lose.

          • Turtler

            “So the saying “to learn by osmosis” isn’t a thing? To LEARN by
            osmosis? ”

            I didn’t say it isn’t a thing, I said it is not the thing I used (and neither was genetics).

            Difference moron, difference.

            “Do you realize how stupid you sound in your attempts to prove your nonsense at all costs?”

            Do you? And the problem with you is greater. What you type doesn’t merely “sound” stupid, it is stupid.

            “My arguments are obfuscation? ”

            Yes, they are. As seen by how you magically turned a rebuttal pointing out that osmosis is passive while the lessons I received from my father were active (and involved him setting aside time in the day for us to work on) as denying Learning by Osmosis exists at all.

            When in reality it is merely pointing out that osmosis does not usually mean “by learning” alone. And that I did not learn statutory interpretation through osmosis, tearing at your attempt to save face by abusing the definition.

            Any questions?

            “She’s criminally liable for her staff? NO SHE ISN’T YOU STUPID PHUCK.”

            Then why don’t you prove it?

            “Tell me where that is ever the case outside of a RICO case or regulatory offense?”

            Ah, so you are asking me to DISPROVE your claim without offering any proof of your own.
            The problem is this:

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

            As someone who KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the information was classified and did not belong on there and who was responsible for the actions of her staff (as being their superior), she is liable for it through (at minimum) gross negligence.

            The exact equivalent term of which Comey used. And yes, for the record, people can and indeed are punished for their subordinates screwing up with classified information when they should have known better.

            Again: https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/comment-page-2/

            But I suppose that this (liberal and previously Hillary fan) is also peddling “Fake News”? And that they are lying when they state the main defense Hillary has is claiming *She didn’t know better*, even though that would not be enough?

            “You don’t know anything about the law. Stop pretending.”

            And yet I’m the one who had to point out a simple fact that *a law you claimed Mens Rea was necessary on Specified No Such Thing.* I am the one who has actually bothered making the case about Hillary’s crimes. You have done no such thing in spite of alleging Trump is a traitor (ok genius, then how? Where’s the Venona Decripts ? Where’s the message in the Pumpkin that got Alger Hiss?)

            “I shouldn’t let someone as dense, as such a liar,”

            Blah Blah Blah.

            You’ve been caught repeatedly lying about not just the case, but the definition of Osmosis and *what I actually wrote.* Those in glass houses should not try and hurl boulders.

            ” You will not be allowed to.”

            I will not be *allowed* to?

            it reads like I already have.

            “The fact of the matter, dumbazz, ”

            Very not perturbed there.

            “is that everyone is focused on Trump.”

            Again, this matters not a whit to the legal merits or demerits of the case. And the fact that you are seriously putting it forward as an argument indicates you are the one with a weak grasp of the law.

            “Write a million lines about Clinton if you please, no one will care.”

            Not true, again.
            ” It would be like me going on about Romney the election

            before this one.”

            There’s no evidence Romney lied under oath about top secret and above top secret information. Or put it on a ludicrously insecure server.

            Your attempt to conflate the two is as dishonest as it is pitiful.
            ” As much as you desperately wish you were still focusing on Clinton, you just can’t do it.”

            Focusing on her? Sorry but as much as you may disbelieve, I don’t focus on politics in general. I generally get involved in my free time.

            ” Time to move on junior. That’s the winner right there.”

            Because I’m going to take the advice of someone who can’t even quote me correctly.

            ” No one cares about Clinton anymore, except you desperate little liars ”

            Well then prove we’re lying.

            In court.

            Put up or STFU.

            “Sorry, you lose. ”

            No, you do.

            And you show it because you’ve decided that “Nobody’s focusing on her” means “She’s not guilty.” The fact that you seriously tried to compare her to Romney without the *least* bit of argument to support it shows.

            You try and turn the law into sophistry. But the law is much more than that.

            “Every last lie that he goes back on, every broken promise, every time this POS tries to put an enemy of our country above his own countrymen, will register with the people. ”

            It’s a bit rich you are claiming this just after eight years of Obama (remember Reset?).

            However, in a limited sense you are right. If he does do those things, it will register or at least SHOULD. And I will be all in favor of making him to account for such deeds in a court of law.

            Just. Like. Hillary. And whoever else was involved in her sordid case.

            You lost. You admitted it when you started this sordid debate. And now you’re just losing even more ignominiously.

          • Forewarned

            So, you recognize learn by osomosis, a type of learning. Do you even remember what you write? I know it’s hard to remember so much meaningless cr*p but please try. The part about active versus passive is a false distinction.

            Point to where it says in the statute that one is criminally liable for the actions of another. I won’t hold my breath.

            Further, I don’t have to prove it. I asked, are there charges? To which you continue to argue that there could be. I don’t need to argue hypotheticals with you or find statutes to prove she could have violated. That’s not my contention. There are no charges and hypotheticals don’t count. There is no case. Sorry, I win.

            You love the straw man. I didn’t say Romney violated the law, I said he no longer mattered when the focus is on the winner. Same here. No one cares if she’s guilty SHE’S NOT THE PRESIDENT, STUPID. King Cheeto is the focus now. Sorry.

            Reset didn’t amount to believing our avowed enemies over just about all of our intellegence apparatus. I know you might believe that, but you’re stupid.

          • Turtler

            “So, you recognize learn by osomosis, a type of learning. Do you even

            remember what you write? I”

            Not only do I, I remember what you wrote much better than you do.

            Including the fact that you previously tried to label learning period/in general as Osmosis.

            “”Osmosis usually indicates by learning….”

            ” The part about active versus passive is a false distinction.”

            Oxford dictionary disagrees.

            https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/osmosis

            “2The process of GRADUAL or UNCONSCIOUS assimilation of ideas, knowledge, etc.:”

            The bottom line is you tried to claim I didn’t indicate how I learned it, and gave only the options of “genetics or osmosis”, neither of which fit. I refuted you, and you tried to claim that osmosis includes active learning through lessons and the like. When I refuted that, you tried to claim I was saying learning through osmosis is not a thing, rather than merely not the way I learned.

            All it does underline is your utter desperation.

            “Point to where it says in the statute that one is criminally liable for the actions of another. I won’t hold my breath.”

            If there’s one thing you should have learned from all this, it is that I accept challenges.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

            See d:

            “(d) Whoever, lawfully having POSSESSION OF, ACCESS TO, CONTROL OVER,”

            Do I have to explain how having one’s own subordinates deal with such information is having control over it (through having control over them)? And thus the penalty for them (or you) misusing it applies?

            “Further, I don’t have to prove it. I asked, are there charges? ”

            And so we get to the double standards. You want to slam you hand on the desk and demand “WHERE ARE THE CHARGES!” Which might be reasonable in most cases. but then on the other hand you want to go out and claim that Donald Trump is an outright TRAITOR, in spite of no charges being filed ever.

            Even YOU could at most say that someone who is buddy buddy with Putin “might” be a traitor. which is not enough to get indictments.

            So you want to have it both ways. But you can’t. Pick one standard or the other.
            “That’s not my contention. There are no charges and hypotheticals don’t count.”

            Except evidence that is not hypothetical does count.

            “There is no case.”

            Except Case does not equal Charges. There’s a reason why people refer to “building a case” before putting out formal charges. Because the two are separate , even if they are ultimately joined.

            “Sorry, I win.”

            You keep saying that, but you never do.

            “You love the straw man.”

            No, you do.

            “I didn’t say Romney violated the law,”

            Which makes you citing of Romney the straw man. Since you wanted to compare my talking about Hillary to you talking about Romney. But the cases are not close, because you didn’t say Romney violated the law and there is zero evidence that he did.

            In contrast, there is ample evidence Hillary and staff connected to her did. So me talking about her is not akin to you talking about Romney, and both being out of the media spotlight’s center will not make their situations comparable.

            ” No one cares if she’s guilty SHE’S NOT THE PRESIDENT, STUPID. ”

            And this is really the best argument you have.

            Nobody cares if she’s guilty so long as she isn’t the President. No care about justice or the law.

            Well sorry moron, but this “stupid” does care. And I’m not the only one. Ergo, this claim of yours is False.

            “Reset didn’t amount to believing our avowed enemies over just about all of our intellegence apparatus.”

            Indeed, but it did involve going over their objections.

            “I know you might believe that, but you’re stupid.”

            Says the person- who while supposedly a trained lawyer- basically says “it’s ok if Hillary is guilty of massive crimes so long as she is not the President.”

            That doesn’t work, Stupid. And it shouldn’t.

          • WisconsinUSA

            Wrong, wrong again turtle

          • Turtler

            Then why are you apparently incapable of replying to it?

            And why are you merely specifying ME as being wrong without also addressing CNN and the rest? Surely if what I’m saying is “Fake News” they are also guilty of it.

          • WisconsinUSA

            Anybody can Hurl accusations without proof. Ask your buddy Trump. Just because you say it is doesn’t make it so.

          • Turtler

            “Anybody can Hurl accusations without proof. ”

            I am well aware.

            That is why I have spent a fair lot of trouble providing proof.

            The issue is you don’t seem to want to acknowledge it! You’ve condemned sources as far afield as Fox, CNN, and FactCheck.org as “Fake News” while the only proof you made for your accusation was a single Vanity Fair article using a single book as a source (albeit a book based off of primary sources).

            So you will forgive me if I am not particularly interested in your judgement after all this time.

        • WisconsinUSA

          I am still waiting for you to show me Hillary Clinton’s rap sheet turtle .you know proof that there’s been charges filed against her, a mug shot from the police department, a trial date, or are you are you just blowing smoke again ? In America you cannot be called a Felon unless you have been convicted of a crime. Go back to your playground turtle grow a pair.

          • Turtler

            “I am still waiting for you to show me Hillary Clinton’s rap sheet turtle .you know proof that there’s

            been charges filed against her, ”

            Her rap sheet’s clear (or nearly clear) because charges have not been filed. But that does nmean her rap sheet *should* be clear or that carges should not have been filed against her based on what we know.

            Again, I point back to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xNLLcS2Yx8a

            And that seems to be what is really screwed up with your standards here. That it doesn’t matter what she did, what it has been proven she did, or the like. That the only thing matters is what people have charged her with.

            And if a compliant DoJ does not charge her with anything, it all MUST be good.

            Now, do you have any reply to the video, or are you not even going to address it?
            “In America you cannot be called a Felon unless you have been convicted of a crime. ”

            Not true. Felons are those who have committed a felony, which is why the US Government was willing to refer to Benedict Arnold as such without a formal trial (which he never got since he fled).

            “Go back to your playground turtle grow a pair.”

            Dude, I’ve cut my teeth beating heads with ehadis. I’m pretty sure I don’t need to take testosterone enhancement tips from a “fake news” scrub.

          • Forewarned

            Again he points to a fake news, poorly-produced video made by ideologues or foreign propagandists as part of a smear campaign.

            WHY CAN’T YOU ACCEPT THEIR “TRUTH?”

          • Turtler

            “Again he points to a fake news, poorly-produced video made by ideologues or foreign propagandists as part of a smear campaign.”

            But you know the kicker?

            Even if every accusation you’ve hurled at that is true, it is STILL much better than anything you’ve been able to put on the table.

            So why can’t you refute a single thing they said? And no, you haven’t. You’ve merely claimed that Mens Rea applies even for cases where it does not.

            Now do you have any information or contesting arguments about the facts or the law, or is this you just loudly pounding the table and insulting people because you have NOTHING BETTER? Nothing to be considered?

          • Forewarned

            “Even if every accusation you’ve hurled at that is true, it is STILL much better than anything you’ve been able to put on the table.”

            So, a cheaply-produced partisan video with spurious claims trumps our argument that if she did something illegal, where are the charges? That’s our argument: WHERE ARE THE CHARGES?

            So, in absence of any charges, you give us said video and tell us that this wins the argument because we cannot furnish any evidence, and I suppose, this outweighs our argument. Quite ridiculous don’t you think?

          • Turtler

            “So, a cheaply-produced partisan video with spurious claims trumps our
            argument that if she did something illegal, where are the charges? ”

            No. The problem is that while the video was partisan and cheaply produced (as if garnish production values makes something more true, like the Battleship Potemkin or Triumph of Will), its’ charges were not spurious.

            As for where the charges are, probably the same place the voter intimidation charges that should have been leveled at members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia (or am I supposed to believe that their videotaped conduct was somehow acceptable?).

            “So, in absence of any charges, you give us said video and tell us that
            this wins the argument because we cannot furnish any evidence, and I
            suppose, this outweighs our argument. Quite ridiculous don’t you think?”

            That would be if your strawman was an accurate representation of it. The problem is the video directly details the statues in question and Comey’s under oath summary of the investigation’s findings.

            I wonder, what will be your argument if- in mid February- Clinton is indicted? Then what will your arguments be?

          • Forewarned

            Do you think you win arguments just because people grow tired of you? You have literally said nothing that I consider valid Squirtler.

            New Black Panther Party eh? Sounds like a bunch of b.s. to me. A boogie man for stupid rednecks. Are you scared of the black man? Don’t worry, I doubt they care about your action figures and cheeto supply.

            You video directly details jacksh*t. Trump is the president and we are all looking at him not Clinton as much as a alt-right twerp like yourself would rather we keep the focus on that traitorous con artist. Try to go after Clinton. I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU CHICKENSH*T BASEMENT DWELLER WITH CHEETO DUST ON YOUR SLEEVES. Just like I say to another enemy of our country Putin–come get some.

            Sorry Squirtler, it’s hard to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent without charges. That’s a big problem for your purely hypothetical prosecution. Perhaps in your mind you make the case and send the bad woman to jail. But that’s in your mind Squirtler, it has no bearing on reality.

            Just admit there is no argument that you can make where guilt is ascribed without charges. You’re an idiot.

          • Turtler

            “Do you think you win arguments just because people grow tired of you?

            No.

            “You have literally said nothing that I consider valid Squirtler.”

            And that’s the problem. you have. You seem to think that you have to *deign* to consider something valid in order for it to be valid.

            That isn’t how logic works, and for whatever my many flaws I know it.

            Take for instance this claim:

            “Let’s dwell a bit on your ability to intrepret statutes, that according
            to you, having a lawyer as a father grants you (by genetics or osmosis,
            you don’t indicate).”

            That I did not indicate what about having a lawyer father helped me understand and interpret statutes. But that isn’t true.

            To go back to my response to it:

            “Even if we allow on the odd chance that you could (teach me statutory interpretation )…, you’re too late.”

            In short, I already said- however obliquely- that I was *taught* statutory interpretation by my father, not through genetics or osmosis. And the text is there.

            Now, you are completely free to consider that invalid. In fact you already have. But that doesn’t make it invalid. It makes you a mad troll howling at the wind because of your inability to accept *anything* beyond a caricature.

            “New Black Panther Party eh? Sounds like a bunch of b.s. to me. ”

            Nowhere near as much BS as what the poor voters who had to deal with .

            “A boogie man for stupid rednecks.”

            These scumbags were videotaped patrolling outside a voter booth in Philly with truncheons (you know, like the NSDAP’s Stormtroopers used after guns were banned, so that they could still beat people up).

            Now I have never been to Philly, but I doubt it has many of what you would call “Rednecks.”

            And while I have no doubt they are of relatively little threat today- just like the KKK- it still sucks if you get killed or harmed by one of those near-unicorns.

            ” Are you scared of the black man?”

            I am scared of any paramilitary thugs parading in uniform outside a voting booth and interrogating anybody who dares film them. Which is why I carry concealed, because while thugs may be racist and even law enforcement may be racist, bullets are not.

            And the fact that you’re resorting to the Race Card indicates you have nothing better to argue with.

            “Your video directly details jacksh*t.”

            If by “Jacksh*t” you mean the under oath testimony of Comey, under oath repitition of Hillary’s testimony, and exact textual copies of parts of the Criminal code, then yes.

            If by “jacksh*t” you mean nothing, it isn’t.

            “Trump is the president and we are all looking at him not Clinton-”

            And you know how much effect who people are looking at has on the validity of these charges?

            As much legal effect as the focus of nearly everybody on the German bombing of London had on the legal parts of the trial for the “Blackout Killer’ Gordon Cummins.

            ABSOLUTELY NONE.

            Being out of the Press Spotlight is not a legal remedy for perjury. Being tried is.

            For the same reason Hillary being elected would not justify a lack of persecution against Donald Trump if he were caught forwarding Secret Service details to the FSB (funny how you dips can’t keep consistent standards).

            “Try to go after Clinton. I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU CHICKENSH*T ”

            Thanks to that , I you inspired me to sign a petition for exactly that, and to get out the foot campaign. well done.

            And PS: I haven’t had cheetos in months, let alone recently enough to have dust from it on my clothes.

            Now I TRIPE DOG DARE YOU TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF TRUMp COMMITTING TREASON. DO IT, OR YOU’RE THE CHICKEN [email protected]
            BASEMENT

            “Just like I say to another enemy of our country Putin–come get some.”

            Ah, the wonder sf having Leftists realize Putin is a bad guy after years.

            “Sorry Squirtler, it’s hard to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent without charges.”

            Normally yes.

            However, when we have ironclad testimony and public findings that Hillary Clinton at minimum committed perjury before Congress… No It Isn’t.

            “Just admit there is no argument that you can make where guilt is ascribed without charges.”

            Oh, I admitted it from the get go. For the same reason guilt can be abscribed to these NBP scumbags without charges being carried through.

            After all, it’s KIND OF HARD TO MAKE CHARGES WITHOUT ASCRIBING GUILT FIRST! How do you think those happen anyway?

            “Mkay Guys, let’s spin the wheel to see who we charge and then see if we can assign any guilt to them!”

            No. You see who has committed criminal activity or seems to have, then you bring charges.

            “You’re an idiot.”

            Says the idiot who can’t do basic research. Or apparently chooses not to read when it is inconvenient.

          • Forewarned

            Again, this solved none of your contentions.

          • Turtler

            Except it did. Merely saying it didn’t proves Nothing.

            Once again, we return to the old saw. “if you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have neither, hammer the table.”

            You’ve been caught making ludicrously stupid and false claims, including that I did not specify how I learned about interpreting legal statutes. The fact that you had to later go back and admit that what I described is Osmosis to you (while trying to mock me for knowing what Osmosis really means better than you do) is a confession that is not true.

          • WisconsinUSA

            Oh boy, are you now trying to make some type of connection or similarity between Hillary Clinton and Benedict Arnold? The Republican Party has been going after this gal for 40 years. They got nothing nothing on her. Oh boy again, A felon is not someone who has committed a crime a felon is somebody who has committed a felony. LOL. And WTH is a ehadi ? I smell stolen valor.

          • Turtler

            “Oh boy, are you now trying to make some type of connection or
            similarity between Hillary Clinton and Benedict Arnold? T”

            Not overly, but it demonstrates that the constant “Where are Da charges?” form of argumentation is inadequate.

            And if anything, Benedict Arnold does not deserve to be compared with Hillary Clinton. He did far more for the US than she has.

            “he Republican Party has been going after this gal for 40 years. They got nothing nothing on her.”

            No charges does not mean they have nothing.

            The fact that you have been accusing everybody from CNN to the Left-friendly FactCheck.org of being “Fake News” because they blow the idea that the Benghazi attack was merely fortysome minutes out of the water underlines it.

            Merely shouting “YOU HAVE NOTHING!” does not actually mean we have nothing. And the fact that you’re not willing to engage or refute it just digs the hole deeper.

            “Oh boy again, A felon is not someone who has committed a
            crime a felon is somebody who has committed a felony. LOL. ”

            Read the freaking comments. You guys were claiming you can’t be a felon unless you’re charged and convicted. That is untrue. You merely have to commit a felony to do so.

            “And WTH is a ehadi ?”

            Jihadi bloggers, internet trolls, and hackers. Hence E-Hadi, like E-Mail.

            “I smell stolen valor.”

            Because you’re a biased idiot who can’t be arsed to look up the meaning of the term “Ehadi” or “E-Hadi” before jumping to conclusions.

            And for the record: I have never served in any military or intelligence capability whatsoever.

            I have merely been a civilian comment writer and blogger who has crossed swords with some of the scum and helped report them to the legal authorities and internet custodians. Along with hitting the occasional actual Stolen Valor hack.

            Got that?

          • Forewarned

            Hard for you to see treason as a crime huh? Is it because your hero is committing it? Benedict Arnold, the traitor, did less than Clinton? You’re delusional Squirtler. Nothing you say is valid. Period.

            For your information, treason is the worst crime and traditionally has been for thousands of years.

          • Turtler

            “Hard for you to see treason as a crime huh?”

            No, it’s not. That is why I mentioned that Benedict Arnold

            “Though to be fair, he also did far more against it than she does ”

            “For your information, treason is the worst crime and traditionally has been for thousands of years.”

            I am aware, SEE ABOVE. Hence why I said he did more to harm it than her (since an attempt to turn over a fortified position during war time is far worse than what Clinton has done) even though he also did more for it.

            “Benedict Arnold, the traitor, did less than Clinton? You’re delusional Squirtler. Nothing you say is valid. Period.”

            Google “The Battle of Saratoga”- THE turning point of the War for Independence (but don’t believe me, believe the national government)- and STFU.

            His role in that battle was so decisive that even AFTER his treason, the United States still recognizes it. But again, don’t take my word for it…

            http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2807178.jpg

            “In memory of the “most brilliant soldier” of the Continental Army who was desperately wounded on this spot the sally port of BORGOYNES GREAT WESTERN REDOUBT 7th October, 1777 winning for his countrymen the decisive battle of the American Revolution and for himself the rank of Major General.”

            But I suppose you’re stupid enough to claim that is not valid because I typed it?

            Name a single thing that Hillary Clinton has done for the US that is even half as important as that.

          • Forewarned

            No charges DOES mean they have nothing. THEY HAVE NOTHING. Hypotheticals do not count. We can come back a year from now and laugh at you when no charges hve been brought against her but why wait? Hypothetical charges are not real, once again, and apparently it has to be continously reiterated to you because you aren’t getting the picture.

          • Turtler

            “No charges DOES mean they have nothing. THEY HAVE NOTHING.”

            And you apply that same logic to Bin Laden regarding 9/11?

            Also: Testimony under oath is something, it is evidence of perjury. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

            No matter the SERIOUS ALLCAPS.
            “We can come back a year from now and laugh at you”

            Call it a date. We’ll see.

            ” when no charges hve been brought against her but why wait? ”

            I remember the last time someone tried that, they claimed Donald Trump could not possibly win the election. But hey, the past two years has seen nothing if not hubris and overconfidence from you lot.

            “Hypothetical charges are not real, once again,”

            No, but uncharged crimes are.

            Again, just because Bin Laden was never formally charged in 9/11 does not mean he didn’t do it, much less that it didn’t happen.

            But I’m supposedly the one who doesn’t know anything about law.

          • Forewarned

            No Squirtler, I’m sure there was a warrant for bin Laden’s arrest. He was absconding from justice. Totally different situation dummy.

            Perjury now? Changes? I’m not going down this road again.

            No, no, Squirtler, you fail to understand that there will be civil unrest if a traitor and arch-liar like Trump goes after Clinton. You want civil war? Again, I double dog dare you Nazzis go after her. See what you get.

            Uncharged crimes promulgated by partisans like you are completely meaningless.

          • Turtler

            “No Squirtler, I’m sure there was a warrant for bin Laden’s arrest.”

            You’re trying to shift the goal posts. But for the record, yes there was a warrant out for his arrest on the basis of several charges.

            None of them involved 9/11, the crime that triggered the manhunt for him. But don’t believe me, ask the major law enforcement agencies.

            https://archive.org/stream/UsamaBinLadenFBI/Usama%20Bin%20Laden_djvu.txt

            So, am I supposed to believe they did not indict him for 9/11 because- as you said- “No charges DOES mean they have nothing. THEY HAVE NOTHING.”” ?

            “Perjury now? Changes? I’m not going down this road again.”

            You didn’t go down it in the first place, so you can’t do it “again.”

            “No, no, Squirtler, you fail to understand that there will be civil unrest if a traitor and arch-liar like Trump goes after Clinton. ”

            But I thought withou charges- like treason- it meant they had NOTHING? Funny double standards there.

            And as for civil unrest, I understand it perfectly. You and your other sore losers made that clear.

            But there is already civil unrest. And frankly?

            Fiat justitia, Ruat caelum.

            “You want civil war? ”

            Do you?

            Then you will find how foolish it is. You should remember he last time a group of rebels waged war on the legal government for the crime of being run by a Republican.

            And frankly if you believed Trump was half the things you said, you should have already started.

            “, I double dog dare you Nazzis go after her. See what you get.”

            Sorry, I am not a fan of collectivists like the National Socialists.

            But I will appreciate the dare.

            “Uncharged crimes promulgated by partisans like you are completely meaningless.”

            You mean like your accusations that Trump is a traitor, on even less grounds?

          • Forewarned

            Your bin Laden digression, pointless. Moving on.

            So your arguement goes like this:
            You: Clinton is a felon.
            Me: Prove it
            You: There could be charges.
            Me: So what. If Trump did try to push it, there would be large-scale civil unrest.
            You: I thought you said there were no charges?

            Do you even know how to argue? It’s not rhetorical and the answer is “no.”

            No, the Civil War involved the rascist rednecks against the more progressive Northerners. It’s the North that had the greater economy. California, New York, Illinois, all blue. And don’t ever compare Lincoln to Trump, he couldn’t hold a candle. Now Jeff Davis, sure.

            Lastly, I know two things. 1) Putin hates the U.S. and is our enemy. 2) Anyone who sides with him over other Americans (intelligence agencies, patriots like John McCain, etc.) seems like they could be a traitor. We’ll see I suppose.

          • Turtler

            “Your bin Laden digression, pointless.”

            No, it’s not. It solidifies the fact that one can have Plenty more than “NOTHING” without pressing charges about a certain crime.

            “You: Clinton is a felon.
            Me: Prove it
            You: There could be charges.”

            Except that’s not what I did. I linked to several sources- right, left, and Center- that point out that by the actions we Know she and her party took, there should be charges. For the same reason we know there was more than enough evidence to charge Osama Bin Laden with 9/11.

            You just ignored it all with an increasingly improbable and intricate stream of Ad hominems.

            “If Trump did try to push it, there would be large-scale civil unrest.”

            Which is an appeal to the sword at best ,not a valid commentary on the merits of the case.

            “Do you even know how to argue? It’s not rhetorical and the answer is “no.””

            Says the moron right after a logical fallacy. That “So what, if Trump tries there will be “Civil unrest. Nice country you have there, shame if people broke it.”

            “No,””

            Oh this should be rich. The proven liar and historical illiterate wants to lecture me about the civil war…

            “the Civil War involved the rascist ”

            Which is true, but that was not the kindle of the war. Even Lincoln was racist.

            “rednecks against the more progressive Northerners.”

            Oh so much stupid here.

            A: Firstly moron, the term “Rednecks” -like the term Hillbillies- was a term coined to refer to UNIONISTS in the South. Those who fought on the side of the bluecoats. So nice job showcasing that ignorance of yours.

            B: You’re willfully abusing the term “progressive” to ignore the fact that the “Progressives” were by and large a reaction Against the Republican party that the Civil war helped establish. Or are you going to ignore that great progressive Woodrow Wilson, he of the Deep South and the “I screened Birth of a Nation in the White House” infamy?

            and finally

            C: Racism did not cause the civil war, at least by itself or primarily. Most of the US was racist at the time. The war was caused by the hegemonic oligarchy of Southern Democrats- who had been holding American politics hostage for decades with threats of secession and civil war- reacting to the defeat of their party at the ballot box by deciding to take a third of the Republic, loot those from out of state, and go home.

            And we know this because plenty of the regions in the South that fought against the Confederates- like Jones County- were as racist and Southern as their Confederate enemies.

            “It’s the North that had the greater economy. California, New York, Illinois, all blue.”

            While ignoring the fact that the Sun Belt is the booming part of the country now, and it is almost all Red.

            “And don’t ever compare Lincoln to Trump, ”

            I’m sorry, I don’t take orders from psychopaths stupid enough to threaten civil war over the persecution of one of their corrupt fellows. And furthermore, they can be compared as Presidents for the same reason Lincoln can be compared with Jimmy Carter or others.

            But I really wasn’t focused on a comparison between Trump and Lincoln. Because I do not think for one second that Trump even comes *close* to measuring up.

            I was comparing the hysterical, threatening moves of die hards like yourself to the incoming Republican administration. You would have fit right in as a Fire Eater.

            “Lastly, I know two things. 1) Putin hates the U.S. and is our enemy. ”

            We agree on that except for the fact that Putin does not fit the legal definition of “enemy” as specified under the law. He is not formally at war with us.

            “2) Anyone who sides with him over other Americans (intelligence
            agencies, patriots like John McCain, etc.) seems like they could be a
            traitor. ”

            > Seems

            Weasel words. Even I didn’t claim Clinton should be charged because she *seems* like a traitor or felon. I claimed she should be charged because she is one, and we can tell that from the information we have.

            So I suppose you were heading the petitions to have Jane Fonda and John Kerry charged for treason?

            “We’ll see I suppose.”

            Indeed, we will.

          • Forewarned

            Let’s get one thing straight Squirtler, your historical ramblings leave much to be desired. How do I know? I have a degree in history from a top-10 university. In the world, in case your wondering. So let’s just get that straight right now. You’re not qualified to lecture me on any subject as far as I can tell.

            The rest is standard squirtings that I care not to comment on. Not that what you wrote is profound, it’s just not worth conmenting on. I’m not taking the bait. Have fun Squirtler.

          • Turtler

            “Let’s get one thing straight Squirtler, your historical ramblings leave much to be desired.”

            I can believe it. But one thing they do not is accuracy. I could also say your legal claims and arguments leave much to be desired, but without that all important caveat.

            “How do I know? I have a degree in history from a top-10 university. In the world, in case you’re wondering. So let’s just get that straight right now. ”

            And in spite of all this, you forgot where the term “Progressive” first originated in late 19th and early 20th century US politics?

            This entire appeal to your “degree in history” in absence of an actual argument is a dead end. Machiavelli wrote that “It is not titles that honor men, but it is men that honor titles.” Likewise, it is not degrees that honor men but men that honor degrees. And if they fail to do so, that is on them.

            “You’re not qualified to lecture me on any subject as far as I can tell.”

            Which would not be surprising, since you can’t tell an awful lot. Not the least of which being the most likely outcome of any civil war you’d try and launch against a legitimate government with natural support from those conservative NRA fans (another institution formed by Unionist veterans) and the military.

            “The rest is standard squirtings that I care not to comment on. Not
            that what you wrote is profound, it’s just not worth conmenting on. I’m
            not taking the bait.”

            Bit late there.

            https://media2.giphy.com/media/3xgR6JaucMaXe/200_s.gif

    • Forewarned

      …And the electoral college.

      I’m a big critic of the belief, mostly on the part of the right, that businessmen are somehow righteous because they run a business or are wealthy.

      Trump was born wealthy and really hasn’t done a very good job running a business either.

      You’re right in the sense, your background shouldn’t matter. It still doesn’t change the fact that 3 of my 4 favorite presidents were attorneys: Lincoln, FDR, and Clinton. JFK is the only non-lawyer in my favs.

      • Oknemfrod

        I don’t see the POTUS office as a contest to win my personal emotional preferences by its occupier. I don’t see “being a great leader” or “having a great charisma” (whatever it may mean) or something else in the same vein as valid criteria to judge of who’s been “good” and “bad”, either. The often applied yardstick “čum hoc, ergo propter hoc” is equally bad because it is a logical fallacy. Frankly, I’m reluctant to render any personal good/bad judgments, anyway, let alone based to any degree on the party affiliation.

        If I had no option to escape answering the question, the only criterion I’d consider would be how seriously one has taken his oath to “protect and defend the Constitution”.

      • Brent

        Drumpf is a sh*tty businessman. 6 bankrupcies. Couldn’t even make money running casinos!!! American banks refused to loan him money so get had to get loans from Russia and China

        http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html?_r=0

        Look at all the farcical businesses like Trump University, Trump steaks and all the other crap he had his name plastered on. Even most of what is considered is his real estate simply has the “Trump” logo plastered on it. Many former business partners severed ties with him in 2015.

        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/companies-dumped-donald-trump/story?id=32162703

        • Forewarned

          He’s a con man, a flim-flam artist; a carnival barking, snake oil salesman who, unlike Ostap Bender, doesn’t realize that he’s a joke. He’s a Marshal of Nobility like Kisa who will hopefully not slit all of our throats.

  • Eolone

    First post. Know almost nothing about disqus. See if this posts here.

    • Turtler

      Well, I don’t know how we’ll get along or if we’ll agree at all, but welcome to the madhouse!

      Hope you have a good time.

      • laker48

        :)

  • Eolone

    Oknemfrod, the founders were indeed profound thinkers. That is why, besides natural born citizen, age, and term or residence, they looked to factions to control the president. There are natural factions, they foresaw, that would exist within the government, within the legislature and the judiciary, that would be restraints on the president. Lobbies are also factions.

    Although we see a strong Constitution, there first generations were weary of it being upset. There was fear that the Federalists might not give way to Republicans. The nascent party system was also of concern.

    Trump is unprepared to take the reins of government. He is in over his head. He spoke of loss of citizenship or jail time for flag-burners when Constitutional law protects this. Someone got to him, and the next time he mentioned flag-burning all he said was that something must be done about it.

    He is unprepared in foreign affairs. If he threatens Iran, there will be Russia to answer to, as much as these two countries have their separate agendas. If he attempts to remove the sanctions on Russia, there will be a Senate pushback.

    • Oknemfrod

      >If he attempts to remove the sanctions on Russia, there will be a Senate pushback.<

      Quite right, and by saying it, you're merely reinforcing my point, which is: Portnikov's claim that having elected Trump means "terrible unbalancing of the entire US system of government" is goofy.

      p.s. Whether Trump is prepared or not to "take the reigns of government" is irrelevant, for he'll not be in a position to take them, being in control of but one set of reigns out of three. His mandate and obligation is to faithfully execute his office and protect and defend the Constitution – and nothing else.

  • zorbatheturk

    Trump won the election fair and square. He owes Putin nothing.

  • Czech Mate

    I count on one special group of people-one that both Pootie and Donnie despise.

    One called journalists.

    • Forewarned

      And traditional Republicans and all Democrats. Impeachment might not be far off. :)

  • tarawabrat

    There’s an old saying: be careful what you ask for, you might get it good and hard. Eisenhower was also lacking in elected gov experience when he beat Truman in ’52. If not for that Nixon wouldn’t have had a chance in ’60 or ’68.

    • Dagwood Bumstead

      Eisenhower did not beat Truman in 1952. His opponent in the election was Adlai Stevenson.

  • anonymous

    “confrontation between Trump and an outraged Congress” is not going to happen because the Republican Party will not interfere in their President’s administration of foreign policy; the president’s responsibility. Republicans will support any Trump foreign policy decisions minus a few loud, empty, meaningless propaganda voices to confuse the real position of the Republican party; pro Trump, pro Putin through and through.

    • Fortranz

      “- “confrontation between Trump and an outraged Congress” is not going to happen because the Republican Party will not interfere in their President’s administration of foreign policy-”

      It’s already happening now with the fight between the CIA/NSA and Trump on the Russian hacking issue anonymous. And the last I checked the Republicans were the majority in both Senate and Congress.

      “- Republicans will support any Trump foreign policy decisions -”

      You and Trump are the only ones who seem to think this is what is currently developing.

      “- the real position of the Republican party; pro Trump, pro Putin -”

      Really, and what do you base this on [your expertise at reading tea leaves]?

      • anonymous

        The statements of Trump on Putin are clearly Putin apologist statements. Trump was the candidate selected by the Republican Party. Trump won the election for President as the Republican Party candidate. The president decides foreign policy (fact). Sometimes opposition party in control will frustrate some of the foreign policy but the majority party will support their president 100% of the time. There may be one historical instance where that is not true; ask a historian perhaps one could be found. There is no fight over the hacking other than misdirection talk, the future administrations position is clear. Trump probably has more doubts of support than I do. The misdirection by a few loud Senators is more of a clear propaganda effort to me. The pro Putin position of Trump are clear by his statements; Putin apologist (tea leaves to you). As for the Republican Party, they only used the weak on Russia lines to criticize Obama. The Republican majorities never passed one law requiring actions about Putin; not one, only talk this and that and the President could do this and that. Not one law, if you speak of the Maginsky Act, this was more Obama and Democrats than Republicans and it only requires some analysis by the presidential administration to impose sanctions which can be undone in a few days. Just name one law that Republican Party passed that REQUIRES actions against Putin; name it.

      • Forewarned

        You’re right and as many here have said, the Congress isn’t going to let this traitor sell his country out. The pushback is there to send a powerful message: Putin is our enemy and you will not get into bed with him.