A Weaponized Executive Branch

[Wrestleknownothing]

16 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

jfc. that's the point.

that's what being 'weaponized' means. 

But it is an all-purpose excuse.

If we fail to convict it is because of weaponization against us rather than a failure to make our case.

If we are convicted it is because of weaponization rather than our guilt.

It is the political version of blaming the ref when you lose. Its a losers argument.

[jross]

1. A girl was sexually assaulted at high school by a skirt-wearing "gender fluid" boy in the girl's bathroom. (May 28)
2. The school sent an internal email about the reported incident under investigation. (May 28)
3. The school lied about their knowledge of the first incident. (June 22)
4. Police tackled the girl's dad (Scott Smith) at a board of education meeting, with an agenda topic covering the enlargement of transgender bathroom policy.  Scott was tackled while arguing with a woman who discounted his daughter's alleged assault (link) (June 22)
5. Scott Smith was arrested for obstruction of justice (WTF?) and disorderly conduct.
6. The National School Board Association (NSBA) penned a letter to the president referring to parents like Scott as domestic terrorists (letter - page 4 citation 13) and called for the DoJ, FBI, etc... under the Patriot Act, etc. (page 2)
7. The boy was arrested and found guilty ... after they also assaulted another student. 

The lawsuit facts alleged is wow! (link)

 

[BobDole]

Biden can barely speak a coherent sentence, but can sure organize a crime ring without being busted. Gotta love the guy.

[jross]

1970s...

• WASHINGTON, July 10—John D. Ehrlichman repeatedly put pressure on the Internal Revenue Service to find something wrong with the tax returns of Lawrence F. O'Brien, the Democratic party chief, hoping to “send him to jail before the election” of 1972, according to a staff report of the Senate Watergate Committee made public today. (NYTimes)

Do you think the emphasis sounds familiar today?

[Plasmodium]

8 minutes ago, jross said:

1970s...

• WASHINGTON, July 10—John D. Ehrlichman repeatedly put pressure on the Internal Revenue Service to find something wrong with the tax returns of Lawrence F. O'Brien, the Democratic party chief, hoping to “send him to jail before the election” of 1972, according to a staff report of the Senate Watergate Committee made public today. (NYTimes)

Do you think the emphasis sounds familiar today?

I vote no.

[Husker_Du]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

But it is an all-purpose excuse.

If we fail to convict it is because of weaponization against us rather than a failure to make our case.

If we are convicted it is because of weaponization rather than our guilt.

It is the political version of blaming the ref when you lose. Its a losers argument.

convict is a matter for the courts.

it's not about convictions. it's about the process which is clearly corrupt. 

potential violations by people on the right get expedited; by people on the left go uninvestigated or uncharged.

if people are guilty let the court rule. but the people on the left don't even get charged despite what appears to mountains of credible evidence. 

nothing on epstien is insane. nothing on hillary on a dozen fronts (including the fake dossier). nothing on hunter and DOJ clearly holding the process up. 

[Plasmodium]

2 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

convict is a matter for the courts.

it's not about convictions. it's about the process which is clearly corrupt. 

potential violations by people on the right get expedited; by people on the left go uninvestigated or uncharged.

if people are guilty let the court rule. but the people on the left don't even get charged despite what appears to mountains of credible evidence. 

nothing on epstien is insane. nothing on hillary on a dozen fronts (including the fake dossier). nothing on hunter and DOJ clearly holding the process up. 

Apart from the first sentence, none of this is remotely true.  It is fantasy.

[Husker_Du]

well, then it's settled. b/c you say so. 

nothing on epstein is a giant miscarriage of justice. it's an enormous cover up by federal agencies. and i don't understand how anyone - be it on the left or the right - can't see that. 

 

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

well, then it's settled. b/c you say so. 

nothing on epstein is a giant miscarriage of justice. it's an enormous cover up by federal agencies. and i don't understand how anyone - be it on the left or the right - can't see that. 

 

Well, it is not settled because you say it!   Some of us need more than accusations. 

Sure, there may be smoke in the Epstein case.  Some very powerful individuals could be implicated and in fact are associated with him.  The pertinent question here is how does that any way reveal a leftist weaponized government?  Why doesn't it reveal a rightist weaponized government instead?

 

[Paul158]

3 hours ago, jross said:

1. A girl was sexually assaulted at high school by a skirt-wearing "gender fluid" boy in the girl's bathroom. (May 28)
2. The school sent an internal email about the reported incident under investigation. (May 28)
3. The school lied about their knowledge of the first incident. (June 22)
4. Police tackled the girl's dad (Scott Smith) at a board of education meeting, with an agenda topic covering the enlargement of transgender bathroom policy.  Scott was tackled while arguing with a woman who discounted his daughter's alleged assault (link) (June 22)
5. Scott Smith was arrested for obstruction of justice (WTF?) and disorderly conduct.
6. The National School Board Association (NSBA) penned a letter to the president referring to parents like Scott as domestic terrorists (letter - page 4 citation 13) and called for the DoJ, FBI, etc... under the Patriot Act, etc. (page 2)
7. The boy was arrested and found guilty ... after they also assaulted another student. 

The lawsuit facts alleged is wow! (link)

 

You do understand you are not allowed to use facts when you are making your arguments. It's amazing to me how smart people can have such a blind eye towards the reality of the truth. 

[Lipdrag]

5 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It is the political version of blaming the ref when you lose. Its a losers argument.

Interesting analogy to a wrestling thing here.  Thank you because it made me pause and think of its applicability. 

Of course we coach the kids that they have to work hard enough to beat the other kid and with enough margin to beat the ref also (or, to be less antagonistic, to overcome a bad or missed call).  So, coming back to politics, how do you "win" by enough margin to beat the opponent AND beat the courts also when it is a fact that the referees are "homers" in the local areas run by the opponent?  I.E. the other kids' step mom is the referee.

Had Trump remained a Democrat and won would he have been impeached?  Indicted in New York?  Had a pee pee tape dossier released on him and FBI officials/agents ADMIT they lied to FISA courts about him?  Had all of his historical business activities investigated?  How about if he simply had kept saying "you're fired" on TV?  Not a single fact about his business dealings has changed between 2015 and now.  What could possibly have caused the deals to be scrutinized now and not when they actually happened . . . ?  What happened?  I can't think of a thing.

WKN, do you think the referees are not betting (or dependent) on the outcome of the game they are refereeing?

Edited October 27, 2023 by Lipdrag

[Wrestleknownothing]

29 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Interesting analogy to a wrestling thing here.  Thank you because it made me pause and think of its applicability. 

Of course we coach the kids that they have to work hard enough to beat the other kid and with enough margin to beat the ref also (or, to be less antagonistic, to overcome a bad or missed call).  So, coming back to politics, how do you "win" by enough margin to beat the opponent AND beat the courts also when it is a fact that the referees are "homers" in the local areas run by the opponent?  I.E. the other kids' step mom is the referee.

Had Trump remained a Democrat and won would he have been impeached?  Indicted in New York?  Had a pee pee tape dossier released on him and FBI officials/agents ADMIT they lied to FISA courts about him?  Had all of his historical business activities investigated?  How about if he simply had kept saying "you're fired" on TV?  Not a single fact about his business dealings has changed between 2015 and now.  What could possibly have caused the deals to be scrutinized now and not when they actually happened . . . ?  What happened?  I can't think of a thing.

WKN, do you think the referees are not betting (or dependent) on the outcome of the game they are refereeing?

Let's address the second paragraph first. I find the whole what if / hypothetical stuff to be a massive waste of time. The accusation-through-leading-question is an awful technique, as well. If you then follow it with "what? I was just asking", that is worse than blaming the ref for your own shortcomings.

As for the first paragraph, the vast majority of the time a loss is not attributable to a ref mistake or a biased ref. That is what losers tell themselves so that they do not have to admit that they were second best. Failing to recognize your shortcomings is a sure path to not getting better. As for how Trump fits in this, I lost track of how many Trump nominated judges pointed out that there was no basis for overturning the election. Not exactly biased refs. At least not biased against Trump. Trump literally refuses to admit that he lost when every referee, biased for him and biased against him, says he did. Hence he refuses to get better. And it saddens me that he drags down my Republican party with him.

While I am skeptical that a case in NY would have ever been brought had Trump not attempted to block the peaceful transfer of power, he did attempt to block the peaceful transfer of power. And that answers your question with regard to what happened. He has brought this upon himself. I am pretty sure he lied about his net worth to finance his businesses. I am also sure many others have done the same without getting prosecuted. But like in investing, hope is not a strategy. Hoping to not get indicted for your crimes is not a strategy.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[Husker_Du]

4 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Well, it is not settled because you say it!   Some of us need more than accusations. 

there's much more than 'accusations'. there's evidence. and plenty of it. 

4 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Sure, there may be smoke in the Epstein case.  Some very powerful individuals could be implicated and in fact are associated with him.  The pertinent question here is how does that any way reveal a leftist weaponized government?  Why doesn't it reveal a rightist weaponized government instead?

you can't being effing serious

[Plasmodium]

24 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

there's much more than 'accusations'. there's evidence. and plenty of it. 

you can't being effing serious

I haven’t seen anything to indicate that.  I have seen convictions and mountains of evidence that held up under cross examination.  We all have.

Why do you think Epstein reveals leftist corruption?  It doesn’t make any sense to me.

[WrestlingRasta]

7 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

I haven’t seen anything to indicate that.  I have seen convictions and mountains of evidence that held up under cross examination.  We all have.

Why do you think Epstein reveals leftist corruption?  It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Because Tucker told him to