patrick.net

Rew says

bipartisan committee

No way! They are all the same ASSHOLES!

HEY YOU says

No way! They are all the same ASSHOLES!

Way ... GOP did it! :)

That's not a good way to build up a working relationship with another nation. Sooner or later that does come back, what goes around, comes around, and that's no good.

Trump should be allowed to piss on the Mona Lisa with impunity!

Why do they hate superiority?

200 suing for emoluments clause. The goal: get business dealings disclosed.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/200-democrats-sue-donald-trump-benefits-170614081729018.html

Might have to put it on the back burner though Trumpey, because Russia, Russia, Russia.

FortWayne says

That's not a good way to build up a working relationship with another nation. Sooner or later that does come back, what goes around, comes around, and that's no good.

Please inform Russia that "what goes around, comes around" because it is coming their way soon. Russia is not our ally. They have returned from deep scorn and perceived humiliation by us, to reclaim satellite countries, expand influence in middle east, and capitalize on disruptions they have caused in western democracies.

Excuse me while I don't feel we need to rush to extend an olive branch to them. Not interested. I would be highly interested in fomenting a revolution to oust Putin though. Can we get on that?

Who gets to sort through all the pictures of Arabs picking their noses and blowing turds into the sand?

If there's no Russia, the Military Budget is in big danger!

Also, gotta keep off any pressure to reform the Democratic Party with the Russian boogeyman!

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Also, gotta keep off any pressure to reform the Democratic Party with the Russian boogeyman!

Democrats have learned from Republicans. Talk about Benghazi for 4 years and eventually everyone believes it. I don't think Democrats are letting this go. They will probably compromise on the rest of Trump's agenda though.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

If there's no Russia, the Military Budget is in big danger!

So you are against Trump's call for military build up and revitalization? Fascinating.

(Pssst: hint, current military budget is all towards IS, Middle East intervention, Chinese containment, and capability to fend off a missile shot from N. Korea.)

TwoScoopsMcGee says

any pressure to reform the Democratic Party with the Russian boogeyman!

There is nothing like losing the Presidency to cause a good look in the mirror. I don't think you need to worry about Dems working to re-define themselves here. Redfeined into something you like or agree with, probably not, but they are for sure working on it.

tr6 says

... Talk about Benghazi for 4 years and eventually everyone believes it.

Sadly true to a degree for Benghazi. I think the only difference here will be, unlike Birtherism and Benghazi, there will likely be many in Trump's admin (maybe even Trump himself) who are actually directly implicated for wrongdoing. This won't be a "failure of the system" type issue, or a conspiracy theory proven to be exactly that, a conspiracy.

This will be a "people broke the law" affair in the end.

Rew says

TwoScoopsMcGee says

If there's no Russia, the Military Budget is in big danger!

So you are against Trump's call for military build up and revitalization? Fascinating.

There are true loyalties, and then there are situational loyalties. It's pretty easy to see what's what in this particular case.

Rew says

There is nothing like losing the Presidency to cause a good look in the mirror. I don't think you need to worry about Dems working to re-define themselves here

There is a reason why Trump won. Democrats have not addressed that reason yet making his win in 2020 likely. If you think it's funny, try to get around the country and see the support that he is enjoying despite his stupid policy proposals.

Rew says

There is nothing like losing the Presidency to cause a good look in the mirror. I don't think you need to worry about Dems working to re-define themselves here. Redfeined into something you like or agree with, probably not, but they are for sure working on it.

Really? Because the Democrats have nothing but "MUH RUSSIA!" and have elected Clintonistas to every major party leadership position so far.

I see distraction, not dodging.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

have elected Clintonistas to every major party leadership position so fa

Bernie or Elizabeth have no clout in the Democratic party. Rew is an example of that.

tr6 says

Bernie or Elizabeth have no clout in the Democratic party. Rew is an example of that.

:) I voted for Bernie in the primaries, comrade tr6. I anxiously await Warren and Harris's moves. I have been pushed left of center when I used to vote Republican.

What you call "Deep State" and "globalist" I simply call "American interest".

Ok not a legal person, but if even 1 person voted not guilty-shouldn't that be not guilty? Hung means some people don't vote??

lostand confused says

Hung means some people don't vote??

Hung jury (in criminal cases) means no unanimity or majority (whichever is required), i.e. no verdict either way.

PS. I'm not a lawyer but I did stay in Holiday Inn couple of times.

god damn...he sure ain't lying about that being blind shit...

BlueSardine says

god damn...he sure ain't lying about that being blind shit...

The legal profession coined "Palimony" purely for the purpose of extorting and ripping off rich men with whining bitch vehicles. This is the next phase called "Rapeimony".

After all, wouldn't you expect a "hung jury" to be sympathetic to Cosby?

Bill got really lucky, usually feminists scream in outrage upon accusation that he's guilty even if proven innocent. I guess you have to be rich to earn justice, an average guy like most of us here would be in jail long ago. Especially in gay feminist liberal California which automatically assumes guilt.

This could be a nice setup if the timing is right. Raise the dividend after a nice run up and we could get a nice bump

FortWayne says

Bill got really lucky

He sure did. Now how could the loving Dr. Hugstable ever harm another person?

Yah he's far from innocent. Still, crime should be proven with evidence instead of hearsay.

Quigley says

Yah he's far from innocent. Still, crime should be proven with evidence instead of hearsay.

True, but the rich are better able to buy their innocence. That is not fair nor is it true justice.

Cosby gave her the pills and she consumed them knowingly. What is the rape scenario?? Now if he slipped something without her knowledge-absolutely-but I don't understand this whole Cosby thing. They all agreed and knew what they were doing-so what si the case? What is enxt, he gave me a drink and I drank it and so he raped me? Or he took me to dinenr and knew put out when I get a good meal-so rape??

sitting at the march low right now...who is buying more? :)

Strategist says

I believe Cosby is guilty, and should spend the rest of his miserable years in a cell.

He'll spend the rest of his years in hell of trials and re-trials. Will probably croak from stress-induced heart attack or stroke.

It is kind of tempting to buy more.

I don't know if this is morally wrong but whenever I see some unattractive, usually morbidly obese woman cry out about being raped, I always read that with a tinge of doubt.

I was watching on TV, so may not be the exact facts. But it appears the rape accuser claimed it was January of some year for the rape. Then they had telephone records of her calling Cosby 72 times after the alleged rape. When confronted with those-she conveniently changes the date of rape to after the phone conversations-this was back then and why she was not charged. She then got a nice financial settlement out of him.

I can't believe this went to trial and I can't believe this is a hung jury-it should be not guilty within the 1st hour.

Dan8267 says

This is Strategist's fundamental character flaw and his Achilles's heel. He forms rigid opinions based on superficial, incomplete, and often downright wrong information. Once he forms such an opinion, no evidence to the contrary will sway him. This is exactly why Strategist would be the absolute worse person to serve on any jury.

In the eyes of the law Cosby is innocent until proven guilty. In my eyes he is as guilty as hell. It's called an "Opinion"
Why you women haters have a problem with that is perplexing.

Strategist says

Why you women haters have a problem with that is perplexing.

Not wanting innocent men wrongly convicted of rape is "hating women"? You sound like a social justice warrior.

Again, I don't know if Cosby is guilty or not. I haven't followed the trial as I have real stuff to do in life. However, I am for the principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and reasonable doubt is defined as "Would you accept serving the sentence given to the defendant if you voted guilty and were later proved wrong?". Unless the answer to this question is yes, then by definition, you have reasonable doubt. Now perhaps that bar is higher the more severe the sentencing is, but I'm OK with that as it makes perfect sense. You have to be a lot more sure of a capital crime than you do about jaywalking.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

In the eyes of the law Cosby is innocent until proven guilty. In my eyes he is as guilty as hell. It's called an "Opinion"

Actually, the law is that the verdict of the jury, whether right or wrong, whether based on evidence or pure bias, determines legal guilt even if an innocent person is found guilty. So, yes, opinions matter as they effect this verdict.

However, what I am calling "my opinion" is not an opinion at all. An opinion is a subjective judgement, for example, vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate. Opinions are neither right nor wrong. Whether or not Zimmerman murdered Trayvon is a matter of fact, not opinion. Either he did or he did not, and my subjective judgements have no effect on that reality. It is as wrong to say "in my opinion, Zimmerman is guilty" as it is to say "in my opinion, a god exists" or "in my opinion, you have cancer". Yes, even doctors are wrong when they say such things, but they are doing so to cover their asses from civil suits as juries don't generally convict people for giving "opinions".

When I say that I believe Zimmerman is guilty, I am making a conjecture, not an opinion. My conjecture is either right or wrong, and if I were on the jury, that conjecture would be damn important, so it sure as hell should be based on objective, verifiable evidence rather than my opinions or gut feelings.

I am not on the jury, but I am a part of the public opinion jury, and so my condemnation also carries some weight. Thus challenge for me to justify my conjecture is very reasonable. I have not answered his challenge. To do so, I need to cite specific evidence to justify the conjecture.

Like.

Straw Man says

Fascinating read.

Falsely quoting someone is a sign of a weak position.

As for Zimmerman, I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot Martin to death. There's plenty of evidence.
1. Martin's dead body.
2. The bullet in Martin's dead body.
3. The forensic evidence proving the bullet was shot from Zimmerman's gun.
4. Zimmerman's fingerprints on the Zimmerman's gun.
5. Zimmerman stating that he shot Martin.
6. The forensic evidence showing that Martin died from the shot and not from anything else like being struck by lighting.

There's also plenty of evidence that Martin did not consent to being killed.
1. Martin tried to avoid Zimmerman.
2. Martin's own words on the phone call to his girlfriend about being stalked by someone.
3. Martin fleeing from Zimmerman.
4. And when that failed, Martin fighting for his life.

So I'm pretty damn sure that Zimmerman murdered Martin based on the above evidence. I'd have no problem convicting him in a jury.

The only people who wanted Zimmerman to face no consequences are those who like the idea of killing black boys and men. The pro-Zimmerman side is completely based on racism. If the skin tones were reversed, I'd still convict Zimmerman for the exact same reasons.

Ouch! Mass exodus ...

By the way, reasonable doubt does not mean that you never convict people of crimes. It means you base those convictions on rational, verifiable evidence rather than what your animal instinct tells you.

Is the whole sector down today or just ARLP?

Dan8267 says

Falsely quoting someone is a sign of a weak position.

Butthurt detected.