It is not the job of investigators to ‘exonerate’

Now, where did you read that before?

Oh yes, right here.

On March 25 4THST8 stated: “Attorney General William Barr quotes (Robert) Mueller saying his report “does not exonerate” President Trump. Since when is it the job of a prosecutor to exonerate anyone? Prosecutors charge someone or don’t. Exoneration is up to juries and judges.”

Today Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe asked Mueller about saying Trump was not “exonerated” by his two year investigation, because it was not his job to do so:

The special counsel’s job — nowhere does it say that you are to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the Special Counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him, it’s not in any of the documents, it’s not in your appointment order, it’s not in the Special Counsel regulations, it’s not in the OLC opinions, it’s not in the Justice manual, and it’s not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully it was not the Special Counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence.

 

 

 

104 comments on “It is not the job of investigators to ‘exonerate’

  1. Anonymous says:

    Qui writes are questions right?

    This bumbling right wing idiot apparently didn’t understand that it means there’s a question mark after whatever bumbling nonsense it is you say.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Queries

  3. Steve says:

    huh?

    Bumbling nonsense, meet Anonymous. (an entity most likely formerly known as “Patrick”)
    You two will get along like two peas in a pod.

  4. Bill says:

    It is my view, that the seemingly gratuitous observation in the Mueller Report that Mueller’s investigation could not “exonerate” the President, was both improper and unprofessional and probably was done intentionally to provide a vehicle for the continued drumbeat to impeach the President and overturn the 2016 election.

  5. Rincon says:

    “Since when is it the job of a prosecutor to exonerate anyone?” As long as we’re nit picking, let’s follow through. Mueller was not a prosecutor. “…the investigation abided by DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion written in 2000 that a sitting president cannot be indicted…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report#Obstruction_of_justice

    If an investigator does not have the power to indict, then he cannot be a prosecutor…unless you want to call him a prosecutor who cannot prosecute.

    Interesting that we’re picking nits as to whether a prosecutor can state the obvious. Also interesting that you choose to pick this supposed ethical lapse by Mueller while assiduously ignoring the essentially constant unethical conduct by Trump. Very tribal. Just as the Evangelical cafeteria Christians support and generally refuse to even criticize a rampant sinner, Conservatives support and generally refuse to criticize a clearly crooked politician. The number of U.S. citizens identifying as Evangelicals is about half of what it was before Trump. Conservatives may pay a similar price for their devotion to such a leader. They may still luck out though. The Democrats are busy alienating moderate voters as well,

  6. Anonymous says:

    It’s not funny that instead of seeing an article noting how heinous it is to have a president that Mueller pointed out LIED through his staff and administration officials to prevent the investigation, or noting that Mueller agreed with those who pointed out that trump ORDERED HIS ATAFF TO FALSIFY DOCUMENTS MPORTANT TO THE INVESTIGATION,

    Instead what we get is a far right wing kook making a statement.

    But what Mueller actually testified to, was this:

    ““The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told lawmakers, after being pressed on the matter by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).

    “The president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction, and that it completely and totally exonerated him,” Nadler said to Mueller. “But that is not what your report said, is it?”

    “Correct,” Mueller replied.

    So after listening to without questin the most profligate liar in American history bleat out from his twittering treetops for months while a Mueller kept silent, tht he had been totally and completely EXONERATED (that was the word the Dotard used) FINALLY we got the guy whose report the Dotard LIED ABOUT repeatedly responding by saying that, yes, the Dotard lied. And he committed crimes, and if it wasn’t for the far right wing lunatic fringe in this country, he’d be in jail sooner instead of just later.

  7. Bill says:

    Rincon, if Mueller did not have the full power to indict and prosecute, how do you explain those that he did indict and prosecute? Come on, you are usually more analytical and intellectually honest than that comment.

  8. Steve says:

    Nice to see today’s little bit of theatre in the form of a total political dog and pony show has changed nothing.
    It’s a political lifetime before November 2020 comes around.
    Plenty of time for any number of distrac……

    OH!
    Look! A squirrel!

  9. Mueller corrected earlier testimony: ““As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.””

  10. Athos says:

    It’s really a shame. Bob Mueller looks clueless today and made me doubt whether he even had anything to do with his own investigation .
    This whole thing was about Hillary not being president and the rabbit laughs inability to accept the outcome of an election.
    Anyone who thought the Democrats came out of this the winner are truly delusional.
    And like I said that is truly a shame.

  11. Athos says:

    ???Can you repeat the question, sir????

  12. Anonymous says:

    Mueller said that a Trump lied, and told others to lie in order to obstruct the investigation. Mueller said that Trump directed subordinates to falsify records in order to obstruct the investigation.

    Mueller said he couldn’t indict Trump due to his status as sitting president.

    For some reason far right wing lunatics believe that it’s acceptable for a president to direct his people to lie to obstruct an investigation, and that it’s acceptable to direct subordinates to falsify records so that an investigation can be obstructed.

    I don’t though.

  13. Yes, Mueller said he couldn’t indict Trump due to his status as sitting president, but then he corrected himself later: “As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

  14. Athos says:

    “ if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”

  15. Athos says:

    The main take away I got from the seven hours of Mueller testimony was that Mueller didn’t do the report. He was merely a figurehead with an R after his name. it was really done by a bunch of Trump hating underlings.
    I’m surprised the Democrats wanted him up there. I know what they hoped they could do ( impeach Trump) but couldn’t someone clued them in on Mueller‘s condition?

  16. Steve says:

    Proof of those lies in a court is a much higher standard than simply reporting people made such claims.
    However likely it is Trump did try to direct people to lie for him, proving this is what Mueller said is not possible given what the investigation was able to find.

  17. Bill says:

    I watched the Mueller testimony and came away with a sense of profound sadness. Once Mueller had an outstanding reputation as a Marine Hero and reportedly had been an able and professional lawyer and former Director of he FBI. His performance in his House testimony was pitiful. He did not answer questions and he seemingly did not know the contents of the report that bears his name. He appears to have been nothing more than a figure head. The gratuitous statement that they could not “exonerate” Trump was unethical.

  18. Athos says:

    I’ll give you another one that just left shaking my head : mueller testified that he did not look into the fusion GPS dossier because it happened before he was appointed, correct ?

    My understanding was the fusion GPS dossier initiated the first FISA warrant ( Secret warrant ) that started this whole Trump Russian collusion fiasco. If you’re investigating Trump Russian collusion why wouldn’t you go to the war secret warrant that started the whole thing? And what is this malarkey about you didn’t do it because it happened before you were appointed to investigate this whole crime? Was his purpose to investigate future crimes a.k.a. like Tom Cruise in the minority report?
    Based on his own testimony I think you could make a charge of cover up by Mueller !

    Any thinking person would see this as it is …. A witchhunt possibly treason to overthrow a legitimate election. I don’t believe this is ever been done in our country, has it?

  19. Anonymous says:

    Any thinking person would see that the president of the United States lied, and instructed his subordinates to lie in order to obstruct an in estimation into his and his administrations conduct relating to undermining the elections in this country and that that conduct did in fact undermine those elections and did impair the investigation into that conduct.

    And some far right wing lunatics would cheer that he did it because the country and our system of government just doesn’t matter to them.

  20. Rincon says:

    Read the quote, Bill. “…a sitting president cannot be indicted…” Only Trump was exempt from Mueller’s prosecutorial power.

  21. Rincon says:

    “My understanding was the fusion GPS dossier initiated the first FISA warrant ( Secret warrant ) that started this whole Trump Russian collusion fiasco.” My understanding is that the Steele document was not submitted until months after the FBI investigation was under way. If true, this shows there was sufficient reason to investigate. I’ll look for a source when I get the time. Please do the same and let me know if my understanding disagrees.

  22. Rincon says:

    Our morality has changed. Trump is right. He could murder someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him.

    Gary Hart’s Presidential ambitions were dashed because he cheated on his wife. Trump cheated on his multiple times, and used campaign funds to pay off his mistresses. No problem John Kerry’s campaign was torpedoed because people thought he lied about his service in Viet Nam. Trump has passed the 10,000 lie mark with no apparent consequences. Athos remembers Obama’s one major lie, but ignores Trump’s entire multitude. Russia gave Trump substantial assistance during the campaign. Trump was aware of it and encouraged more of the same. But you guys defend him consistently and almost never criticize anything he does.

    The creators of penicillin never thought to gouge patients. Today, gouging for even marginally better treatments is routine and you guys applaud, calling it good old capitalism.

    How our moral values have changed.

  23. Steve says:

    Penicillin was a British discovery.

  24. Rincon says:

    “On March 14, 1942, the first patient was treated for streptococcal sepsis with US-made penicillin produced by Merck & Co.[40] Half of the total supply produced at the time was used on that one patient, Anne Miller.[41] By June 1942, just enough US penicillin was available to treat ten patients.[42] In July 1943, the War Production Board drew up a plan for the mass distribution of penicillin stocks to Allied troops fighting in Europe”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#Mass_production

    When I said creators, I could have more properly said developers of penicillin. It was apparently a Merck product. They were the ones who could have gouged patients, not its discoverer, Alexander Fleming.

  25. Rincon says:

    “The gratuitous statement that they could not “exonerate” Trump was unethical”.

    The person being investigated claimed he was exonerated. That was a lie. Mueller had every right to set the record straight.

    “As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.” Al Capone’s boys could have said the same thing about everything except income tax. The day Conservatives rejoice that their leader couldn’t actually be convicted of a crime is the day that their movement goes down the ethical toilet.

  26. Steve says:

    WWII determined what happened with penicillin. Had it not been discovered as the war hit, the road to market might well have been very different.
    A much better example is insulin. It had much the same road to development, but war did not influence it’s sales.

    And look, the squirrel has taken over the topic!

    I knew it, the dog and pony show did nothing to influence anyone. If anything, it hardened the divide.

    Enjoyed the distract….er… squirrel!

  27. Rincon says:

    I found out more about the Steele Dossier. It was written from June to December of 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
    The FBI began its investigation into Russian election interference on July 31, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#2016_presidential_campaign
    This means Steele was only one month into his 6-7 month document when the FBI began its investigation. That being said, Steele had contact with the FBI prior to the beginning of composing his Dossier. Specifically, he informed the FBI about some of Carter Page’s dealings with Russia earlier in 2016.

    If the Republicans believe the Steele Dossier was the only evidence driving the FBI investigation, let them show the evidence. They haven’t, of course. Gee, I wonder if maybe that’s because there is no evidence. The obvious question is why Conservatives are carping about the origins of an investigation that uncovered a wealth of damning information about our enemy, Russia, several Trump associates who went to trial and were convicted, and about Trump himself. It’s a little like the wife caught cheating on her husband who complains that he came home earlier than he had promised.

    Conservatives were quite happy however, with the efforts of Ken Starr, who indicted no one. The only damning evidence about Clinton was about the famous blow job. While quite titillating, it wasn’t exactly a major breach of security, yet Republicans impeached him and today, claim that here’s no reason to impeach Trump. They’re like the parents of a little brat who think he’s an angel.
    Hyperpartisanship is ugly indeed.

  28. Steve says:

    Republicans took quite a beating for impeaching Clinton. Mainly because all it got was the BJ and no conviction.
    It’s a large part of Pelosi’s reasoning for resisting any attempt to impeach Trump now, she feels the process would produce much the same result and prefers to keep her eyes on the prize, 2020.

    In short, it’s not just R’s refusing to impeach…there are plenty of D’s on board. In this instance, resisting the left’s extremist demand to impeach is a bipartisan effort.

  29. Athos says:

    Let’s set the record straight, shall we?

    If the Mueller team could prove that Trump lied even once he would’ve when ahead and recommended prosecution. And yet the report does say the Trump lied and had his underlings lie but if you look carefully this was all done in the footnotes and it was all uncorroborated. And no prosecutor would take this case to the eighth trial with uncorroborated witnesses and testimony, I could see a little p lies all day long, but it’s just my word against his hence uncorroborated. But if Thomas and Rin Back my story with proof, that would prove little p was lying, get the picture?

  30. Athos says:

    Now let’s move onto the investigation itself

    Someone in the Obama Justice Department went to the Pfizer court and got a secret warrant. They tried to get one months earlier but the Pfizer court rejected it. Because after all this court was set up to catch terrorists and spy on terrorists. The Obama Justice Department went back to the Pfizer court and got The approval sometime in the summer of 2016. They consequently got three more Pfizer approvals taking us into early 2017.

    Have I got that right?

    My point is that Mueller didn’t go to those secret warrants if the Obama Justice department obtained, because it would’ve led him to investigate James Comey Andrew McCabe and the whole kitten caboodle that were willing to do anything to keep Trump from being president.

    Any thoughts?

  31. Athos says:

    By the way it’s FISA not Pfizer. I don’t own stock in Pfizer and there’s nothing wrong with Pfizer to the best of my knowledge.

    I’m not trying to do a subconscious squirrel move!

  32. Rincon says:

    Too bad, because I like squirrels.

    Mueller refused to recommend any course of action because he believes that his job was strictly to find the relevant information. He stated this in no uncertain terms. Whether there is enough evidence to charge Trump after his immunity disappears is certainly debatable.

    I believe the only thing that prevents him from being charged with violating campaign finance laws with Stormy Daniels for example, is his paper thin defense that Cohen made the payment without his knowledge. Other offenses are similarly difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but the same could be said about OJ Simpson and Al Capone. It is also axiomatic that no financial bigwigs were charged with any of the numerous shenanigans that occurred during the financial crisis of 2007-9, even though unethical behavior was rampant and it is likely that numerous crimes were committed. Plausible deniability is the mainstay of white collar crime. After all, our justice system is structured such that 100 guilty people will walk rather that have one innocent man convicted. The average citizen doesn’t quite get that high standard of fairness, but a sitting President certainly does.

    I demand far higher standards of behavior from my employees than Conservatives demanded from their candidate and and now fail to demand from our President. If he had worked for me, he would have been fired long before he even announced his candidacy.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Mueller found that Trump and his associates lied in an effort to interfere with the investigation. That is just what he said. That’s what the quotes were for.

    Mueller also found that Trump ordered his subordinates to lie in order to obstruct the investigation. And, Mueller found that Trump ordered his subordinates to falsify records for purposes of obstructing the investigation.

    These are just the facts as affirmed by Mueller during his testimony.

    The reason he didn’t refer charges against Trump were stated clearly and were that he couldn’t because of the DOJs policy against it. (That was the entire point Mueller made by constantly mentioning it. ). And, Mueller refused to say it explicitly, he also explained exactly why which was that he didn’t believe it was appropriate to say he would have because Trump would have his feeling hurt. No, it was that it just wasn’t right to say he would have charged trump, when trump wouldn’t have been able to disprove the charges in court.

    But nevertheless what you have is findings that trump lied, and obstructed and told his people to lie and obstruct and the far right wing lunatics cheering him on and then pounding the table stating that there wasn’t evidence that trump colluded but ignoring the fact that trump made sure they weren’t going to find anything because he and his associates lied and falsified documents to prevent them from finding it.

    And the far right wing lunatics cheers as if that’s some victory.

    Quacks

  34. From today’s Debra Saunders column: At one point, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., prompted Mueller to affirm that he did not charge Trump because of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. But later Mueller took it back when he addressed the House Intelligence Committee. “That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. The right answer was “we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

    https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/debra-saunders/debra-j-saunders-hard-of-hearings-1812457/

  35. Anonymous says:

    I don’t know who Debra Sanders is but hopefully you can see how intentionally misleading she is?

    I mean she says something about Mueller being “prompted” to say something, but she doesn’t even expressly admit that he did in fact say it.

    Then, rather than be honest with her reader, by pointing out that he took a break, then after obvious discussions with someone, came back and DID NOT CONTRADICT IN ANY WAY WHAT HE SAID EARLIER re-phrased what he had testified to in a manner that allows people like yourself to claim something happened that didn’t happen.

    Mueller said that he couldn’t have indicted Trump. That’s the fact. And it’s also a fact that Mueller said that Trump lied, and directed his people to lie, and to falsify records IN AN EFFORT TO IMPEDE THE INVESTIGATION which is the very definition of obstruction.

    And if people choose to ignore what’s implicit in what he said, it’s because they don’t give a damn if trump shoots someone on Broadway.

  36. Plain English: “we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

  37. Anonymous says:

    Plainer English:

    Trump lied and ordered his people to falsify documents so as to impede the investigation. And more that I couldn’t indict trump because of DOJ policy.

    Those are just the facts Jack…er ah, Thomas.

    So, pretend that trump isn’t destroying our “beloved” republic. That is what you people are doing. I mean, when was the last column Barbara “woe be to our believed republic” responded to about what this guy is doing? Or you even. Mor Bill. Or Atholes? Or HFB? Or Vernon?

    All that dribble that was pumped out here for eight long years while President Obama was in office just disappear and it’s almost like this guy didn’t lie, didn’t order people to falsify records, and hasn’t done all the unconstitutional things ya’ll complained about Obama doing all those years.

    But principles man….whatever happened to them?

  38. Steve says:

    Well, yes, Patrick.
    Now it’s your turn to bemoan the absolute danger to “our Democracy” because your candidate threw the election!

    You have to thank Hillary for your “suffering”

  39. Athos says:

    Rin, i’m glad Trump didn’t work for you before he threw his hat in the ring for the presidency .

    Little p, so you’re basically saying Mueller‘s testimony was a win-win for the Democrats right ?

  40. Anonymous says:

    Atholes

    So you’re saying that when a president lies and obstructs and falsifies documents, to obstruct an investigation, and orders his subordinates, to lie and obstruct the investigation and those people do, lie and obstruct the investigation, that some joy can be taken from the results of that obstructed investigation out of which a president, who could not be indicted, was not indicted?

    “Now open your eyes, and pretend he’s black”
    -paraphrasing from Matthew Mcconahegh in A Time To Kill

  41. Athos says:

    Little p, you never answered my question: Mueller testimony was a win for Ds, right?

  42. Steve says:

    Nah, if it was a win for the D’s, Patrick would be crowing and celebrating.

    Add to this, if they go down the impeach road they hurt themselves even more.

    And Patrick will cry even louder.

  43. Bill says:

    My Democrat friends all said that Bob Mueller’s investigation would be the final answer to the question of whether Trump and/or his campaign colluded with the Russians on the 2016 election.

    Well, they heard the answer and they will not accept it. The answer was no collusion between Trump and/or his Staff and the Russians as to the 2016 election.

    It is well to remember how Mueller got appointed. James Comey admitted to intentionally leaking a memo to his college professor friend so that his academic stooge would intentionally leak to the New York Times so that there would be a press report that would indicate special counsel would need to be appointed.

    Thus, the stage was set by Comey.

    Mueller, a friend and mentor of Comey was then named as special counsel. Sadly, during his Congressional testimony, Mueller at first denied that he and Comey were friends.

    The team assembled by Mueller composed largely of Democrat partisans and the ethically challenged Andrew Weisman.

    Why did these hired guns fail to recuse themselves or at least report their conflicts of interest as the ethical rules require?

    Why were these hired guns not vetted by Mueller as to their conflicts of interest?

    The ethical rules require, the avoidance of even the ‘appearance of a conflict’. Why did the team consist mostly of these ethically challenged partisans who seemingly were united by their common disdain and dislike for Trump?

    There were many glaring omissions in the Mueller report. A basic question that Mueller never addressed is the issue of whether there ever was probable cause to open an investigation into the Trump campaign in the first instance. Increasingly, there seems to be some question about that. Why didn’t Mueller look at that issue. Leading up to his appointment and throughout the investigation there has been a constant cacophony from various media and the Democrats alleging that Trump is a Russian agent, Putin’s puppet, and that he and/or his campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election from the righteous Hillary Clinton.

    Never mind that there is no crime of collusion to affect the outcome of an election unless such a law exists in some place like the Soviet Union or some Third World Country. Must not be a crime in Israel, because Obama’s campaign people reportedly aided and abetted Netanahu’s opposition in the Israeli election. (Couldn’t resist that one).

    If memory serves me the basic premise for the appointment of the special counsel was there had been Russian Interference in the 2016 election and that there was collusion between Trump and/or the Trump Campaign and the Russians in that campaign.

    But something happened that was not in the Media or the Democrat’s playbook.

    The Mueller report says that there was no ‘collusion’ between Trump and/or his people and the Russians. The Mueller report says so. It does so unequivocally. Period. End of report. No collusion by Trump and/or the Trump campaign.

    Contrary to the Mueller report, and sadly, in 2016, There was actual collusion by a candidate and a political party with a foreign agent and foreign government to affect the 2016 Presidential election.

    Mueller’s team of partisans ignored it. The media largely ignored it.

    Despite his task to inquire into the Russians and the 2016 election, Mueller totally ignored the one clear case that did involve the Russians and the 2016 election. The media ignores it to this day.

    Both Mueller and the media overlook the one prima facie case of a candidate and a political party colluding with a foreign agent to affect the 2016 election. Mueller’s hired guns totally ignored the false Russian dossier prepared by the foreign agent, Christopher Steele that he said came from Russian operatives.

    Who was responsible for this ‘collusion’? Well, the Russian Dossier was commissioned by , Fusion GPS, that Nellie Ohr (wife of Bruce Ohr on the Mueller team) worked for, and was paid for by the Hillary Clinton and the Democrat National Committee. Why has this been ignored? Was or was not this false dossier the basis for FISA Court authorized wiretaps? Shouldn’t inquiring minds have asked?

    Mueller, according to his testimony before Congress didn’t even know who Fusion GPS was. He had seemingly never heard of the dossier that had been leaked to the world and supposedly initiated his appointment in the first instance.

    To say that “Mueller refused to recommend any course of action because he believes that his job was strictly to find the relevant information…” is an inane and vacuous statement.

    Mueller’s team did bring some indictments and prosecutions. They were on collateral matters and did not involve any aspect of the Trump campaign and the Russians ‘colluding’ on the election. What could be more relevant information for Mueller to look into than an actual instance where a candidate and a political party engaged a firm employing the wife of a DOJ attorney, who employed a former British spy to prepare a campaign opposition document based upon uncorroborated and unconfirmed information supplied by Russian operatives?

    The Mueller report says that there was no underlying crime committed. Following precedent, if there is no crime in the first instance, then there cannot be obstruction of justice.

    The glaring omission of the Mueller report was the total pass on the Russian dossier’. Why?

    As for President’s lying, I seem to recall that Bill Clinton got disbarred for perjury. Out of curiosity, Rin and Anon, did you wax eloquent about the blatant immorality involved in having a young intern service the President by fellatio in the oval office and then lying while under oath about it? Good for you if you did.

    More and more, this whole mess is beginning to remind me of an election in a third world country where the outcome of an election is never accepted. That seems to be where we are now. What will some people do when Trump gets re-elected?

    If, as it is increasingly appearing, that high placed government officials concocted this entire probe under false pretenses, and did so to undo the 2016 election, it is not only sad but a rather frightening and sobering matter that should be a cause for alarm by any concerned person who believes in the rule of law.

    What if, as the New York Times posited recently, if the Steele Dossier was a Russian disinformation campaign from the outset?

    Either way, Putin and the Russians (and possibly the Chinese and the Iranians) are really happy right now with the work being done for them by Jerry Nadler et.al. who refuse to accept the 2016 election and will not quit until they find some basis to justify impeachment. Do you think they might even be so desperate that they would go to court to obtain Trump and Trump relatives tax returns prior to his election?

    Nah…..no one could be that desperate or that base a person.

  44. Anonymous says:

    Bill:

    That was as fine a tribute to one of the all time CLASSIC scenes in history of American comic cinema.

    Qnd Alls I gots to say is

    REVEREND!

  45. Steve says:

    But Trump is supposed to be the liar!
    D’s got plenty experience and it’s showing.
    Media got lots of training fact checking Trump, I suggest the D’s take note and make adjustments in their “rhetoric” before they get called out for lying as much as Trump.

    https://www.apnews.com/b1751f8466f34a4ebd37a95f6ca30956

  46. Rincon says:

    Let’s bottom line this: The Conservatives here are saying that their leader is not a criminal. Oops, I have to correct myself. There has not been enough evidence uncovered to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a criminal. I would agree except for the inconvenient fact that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime by the courts. Hard to say what would have happened to an ordinary citizen. Nevertheless, I would have to compliment all of you by saying that you all have ethical standards higher than those of the President of the United States.

    BTW, have any of the 12 investigations that Mueller initiated in other districts come to fruition? Jared Kushner for one, never received a subpoena despite his meeting with Russians for the express (and proven) purpose of discussing the use of the stolen DNC Emails to benefit the Trump campaign. The only reason that I can imagine is that he will not be eligible for a Presidential pardon in the Southern District of New York. Stay tuned..

  47. Athos says:

    Innuendo, supposition and flat out lying. And the root cause is Trump Derangement Syndrome. “Orange man bad but give me Socialism and Authoritarian Rule by my Elite betters! That’s the ticket for me!!”

    Right, Rinny?

    Any more questions about why I detest and will not let these lies go unchallenged?

  48. Anonymous says:

    Lies?

    Now you’re speaking Agent Oranges language there Atholes.

    Yes, he lied, and that’s what Mueller found. And yes he lied to obstruct the investigation. And that’s also what Mueller found. And, those lies did in fact obstruct the investigation. And a mueller also found that. And, the orange orangutan also ordered his people to falsify documents. And mueller found that. And those people did falsify documents with the intent that the investigation be obstructed. And Mueller found that too.

    These are the very elements of obstruction.

    And Mueller said that the DOJ policy was that a sitting president could not be indicted. He found that too.

    So, you have an investigation into whether the mango maroon conspired with the Russins, to interfere with Americas presidential election with findings of fact sufficient to show that Trump and his people lied, and falsies documents, with the intent to obstruct that very investigation.

    And the far right wing cheers.

    I fear for our beloved republic.

  49. Bill says:

    I don’t think of President Trump as a leader of that amorphous group you label “conservative”. Rather, I think of him as the duly elected President of the United States of America who got elected to that office as Republican but in reality is not a conservative but rather is a pragmatic Populist who, from time to time, has policies that I agree with and others that I don’t. There are things that I disapprove of but no matter who occupies the office, that person is entitled to the fundamental right that an ordinary citizen has, and that is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Absent proof, not mere suspicion or innuendo, everyone is entitled to that presumption and no President should be held to a lesser standard.

    I want President Trump to succeed in leading us, just as I have wanted each and every one of our Presidents to do succeed, including President Clinton, Carter and Obama, all of whom had serious questions about both as to candor and honesty and certainly about policies.

    One of the enduring aspects of our Democratic Republic has been the peaceful transfer of power after our elections.

    Presumptions of innocence and peaceful transitions of power are to hallmarks of our Democratic Republic that has permitted us to be the oldest surviving democracy.

  50. Rincon says:

    I agree with much of what you say, Bill, however, what I see on many posts here is the apparent desire to see this misfit reelected and to support just about everything he does. That is way beyond just saying he’s innocent until proven guilty. As for Trump’s alleged lack of conservatism, it certainly did not show with his Supreme Court nominees and I really can’t see much he has done that Conservatives don’t support.

  51. Bill says:

    Rin, the most recent thing that President Trump has done that as a ‘conservative’ I strongly disagree with, is the deal with Congress on the Budget and debt ceiling. In my view, hat is not ‘conservative’ and I strongly disapprove.

    On the other hand, Appointing Supreme Court Justices who have ‘originalist’ interpretative views, in my view, is ‘conservative’, and I enthusiastically approve.

    Providing a strong military, which is essential not only to national defense but to diplomacy as well, yet eschewing armed foreign intervention is again, in my view, a conservative position of which I approve. In addition, requiring other countries to expend their national treasure to defend themselves is long overdue.

    But, query: These days, is their any description that can identify clearly what is a conservative and what is a liberal? It seems that the terms have been weaponized and are used as epithets rather than definitions.

    The problem with labels is that they are usually misleading and often false.

  52. Athos says:

    It’s always good to get little p’s delusional talking points which sound very much like a leftist talking points! And in case you forgotten is Thomas so eloquently pointed out to you after the last time you tried this shenanigan Mueller recanted what he said in the first session and corrected it at the beginning of the second session last Wednesday.

    As for all those lies and subordinate lies and obstruction lies etc. etc. I guess your only recourse little p, is the have your champion Jerry Nadler go through the impeachment, right?

    And Rin, I think it would surprise you to learn how many people are rooting for trumps agenda especially his Supreme Court pics and the amount of regulations he’s getting removed from federal government as well as pointing out the obvious and not being afraid of the racist label to call out the fax ( see Baltimore)

    To my way of looking is absolutely pleasant to have a republican fight and not roll over like a wimpy dog!

  53. Bill says:

    Seems like there has been another set back in the war against Trump.

    See, wtvr.com/2019/07/30/federal-judge-dismisses-dnc-hacking-lawsuit-against-trump et al. Federal Judge Koetl, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against Russia, the Trump campaign and a number of individuals including Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr.

  54. Rincon says:

    I agree with much of what you say, Bill, although I don’t believe the Supreme Court is a good place for extremists. Hopefully, you were also unenthusiastic about the tax cuts as well.

  55. Anonymous says:

    Yes Atholes anyone with any sense is aware that what you think is dictated by how far to the right the person it is you talking about.

    Which is why, when the tangerine tyrant leaves office, I’ll be very happy to see the next president send him to a black site and use a pay per view waterboard event as a way to pay to provide tanning salons for sage grouse.

  56. Bill says:

    Rincon, I agree that the Supreme Court is not a place for extremists. We tolerate them in our legislatures but that is not a good excuse for tolerating them in the Judiciary. However, why do I think that when you say ‘extremists’ you are referring to jurists who are texualists or orignialists?

    A textualist or a originalist jurist is not, in my opinion, an extremist. In many persons view, the ‘contextualists’ tend to be the extremists. They often become super legislators in black robes who read things into the law and the Constitution that are not there, Contextualists discover non existing laws and rights that do not exist by having an aha moment when looking at the ‘penumbras’ of the law or Constitution. When they do so, the are usurping the roles of legislators and of the people. In my view, they should leaving it to Congress or the people to enact the laws and amend the Constitution. Under our system, the Congress, the legislatures or the people make the laws that govern our society. It is they, not the jurists nor the bureaucrats.

    All of which brings me to something else that, as a conservative, I applaud. The elimination of thousands of pages of onerous, expensive and redundant regulations written by bureaucrats for bureaucrats has been a boon to our economy.

    Finally, I do, as you suggest, agree with the Trump tax cuts. Hopefully, tax relief is still a conservative value. If it were up to me, I would replace the entire tax system and eliminate the income tax. But that is a subject for another time.

  57. Rincon says:

    A well worded and thoughtful position Bill, but I see it a little differently. Textualists are considered by Conservatives not to be extreme, but I don’t believe there is any other position further to the right, so I don’t see how we can consider them moderate.

    As an example of their intentionally ignoring the text, I have put in caps, two words in the Second Amendment that are completely ignored by Conservative jurists who interpret it to allow use of all but the most devastating firearms by almost anyone. “A WELL REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If the Founders gave the government the right to “well regulate” a militia, they sure as hell gave it the right to “well regulate” firearms for the rest of us too. So in my opinion, the textualists aren’t quite what they claim to be.

    Additionally, it is akin to fundamentalist Christianity. The world has changed dramatically such that it becomes ridiculous to blindly follow the literal meaning of every word regarding issues the Fathers could have never anticipated. With the Second Amendment, if we say that government does not have the right to limit say, assault weapons (a slippery term, I agree, but this is for illustration purposes), then we must also agree that the government does not have the right to limit ownership of say, bazookas or Uzis. Where in the textualists’ reading of the Second Amendment is the right of government enumerated to limit these extreme weapons? That being said, I agree that we must be very careful to not alter the intent of the Fathers in the name of addressing our pet issues.

    In principle, I also applaud the elimination of excessive regulation, but it can get sticky when each is considered individually. Is Scott Pruitt’s renewing of the use of chlorpyrofos, an insecticide proven beyond a reasonable doubt to cause structural brain damage in children exposed in the real world, an example of removing an onerous regulation? It’s a nice bumper sticker sentiment that almost all of us can support – until we start discussing each proposed removal. Then it gets more sticky. For what it’s worth, I do advocate the elimination (gradually) of all tax deductions and I’m sure we can agree on at least some regulations that are worthless.

    As for the tax cuts, let me reiterate something I showed previously. As a percent of GDP, and ignoring SS and Medicare, the federal government spends LESS than it did in 1960, so why then do we have such a huge debt? Simple: 43% of the federal government’s income in 1960 was from excise and corporate taxes. Today, it’s only 13%. We spent the same and cut taxes by some 30%, and we have a massive debt to show for it. I don’t see in light of this, how anyone can claim that cutting taxes even more will pay for itself. The Republicans have succeeded several times in buying good times by cutting taxes and going deeper into debt (Reagan, Bush, and Trump). In no case have they paid for themselves. Clinton, on the other hand, raised taxes, and was rewarded with a good economy and a balanced budget. Although Clinton’s economy may have been mostly due to luck, I see no convincing evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves, and fairly abundant evidence to the contrary.

  58. Steve says:

    Yes the WELL REGULATED militia relied on a citizenry that was already armed. The regulation comes into play when assembling the already armed citizens to do battle in defense of the nation.

  59. Athos says:

    Rin have you ever pondered why the founding fathers included the second amendment?

  60. Athos says:

    Another question for you Rin. There’s a faceless bureaucrat in Washington DC know more about how you should spend your money than you do? And do faceless bureaucrats in DC I was income derives from gaining more and more regulations on telling you how do you run your business, do they know how to run your business better than you do?

    In other words would you be happier having someone else run your life for you rather than determining how you want to run your life yourself ?

  61. Anonymous says:

    “Stop trying to tell me how to run my life you faceless bureaucrat! Can’t you see how unhappy you’re making me?”
    -Charles Manson

    You guys man.

  62. Athos says:

    Obviously little p would rather have faceless bureaucrats run his life for him. What’s the matter babe, Your mama ain’t doing it for you no more?

  63. Anonymous says:

    “Obviously the Jews wanted a faceless bureaucrat to run their lives. What’s a matter babe, your mama ain’t doing it for you no more”
    -Atholes to The Jews killed in the Holocast

  64. Athos says:

    What A horrendous comment, little p. But totally in character, right? Your masters will be proud!

    And in it you characterize what’s wrong with the leftist deranged vermin that have poisoned any political discussion in our country.

    Well done little p!

  65. Athos says:

    What an ugly thing to say and totally within character of our leftist ideologues in today’s political climate.

    Have you no shame?

  66. Athos says:

    Rin, are these the champions you want to align yourself with?

  67. Anonymous says:

    “He was mean to me and hurt my feelings and now I need my mommy.”
    -Atholes

  68. Anonymous says:

    “Somebody punch him in the face and don’t worry I’ll pay you’re legal fees”

  69. Anonymous says:

    “We need to strengthen our libel laws so people can’t be mean to me.”
    -Atholes

  70. Steve says:

    Making shit up….Patrick.

  71. Rincon says:

    Hmmm….it’s getting nasty. I’m not so sure how smart it is to get involved but hey, I’m not busy at the moment.

    The 2nd Amendment says well regulated, not well trained, Steve. You can’t be said to regulate a militia if you have brought it together to say, put down a disturbance. Regulate generally means to limit, not to utilize. If the Founding Fathers had wanted everyone to be able to own any firearm of any kind, they would have merely left out the bit about a militia. So, Athos, if you want me to ponder why there is a Second Amendment, you must also be willing to ponder why a well regulated militia is even mentioned. My best guess is that they wanted to have the citizens themselves maintain security and defend the country rather than a mercenary force or professional soldiers under the thumb of the government. They also wanted an armed citizenry in order to keep the government from getting too heavy handed. Our professional armed forces goes against that, but as long as a very large number of Americans are allowed to own firearms, the desires of the Founding Fathers would be met.

    As for the faceless bureaucrat who tells me what to do, I sometimes bristle, but more often, I would be lost without them. It is they who tell me what drugs are safe and effective, for example. If you want to see therapeutics without regulation, just look at the holistic remedy and nutritional supplement industries. It’s the wild west, with 90% of the remedies being essentially worthless.

    They also have decreased our death and injury rates dramatically, cleaned up our air and water, which were absolutely disgusting in the ’60’s; they help me invest without fear of fraud and malfeasance; they protect me from terrorists when I board a plane; they brought electricity to rural areas and enabled the green revolution, created the Interstate Highway System, gave us GPS navigation, reliable weather forecasting, made commercial aviation extremely safe, gave us satellite communications, good maps and Google Earth. Government funded research brought us the Internet, and a thousand other benefits, including one that changed my life. I play a lot of sports, and that began because I learned from government funded research that exercise would keep me healthy. And of course, they also maintain an honestly administered electoral system, gerrymandering codified by the Supreme Court notwithstanding. I could go on for hours, but I’m sure you’ve stopped reading already.

    Every time I get a phishing Email or a robocall, I wish for even more government regulation.

  72. Athos says:

    Rin, if a nation becomes tyrannical, a well armed citizenry will need to rise up and throw off our oppressors. Venezuela is an excellent primer (take away the guns, go full blown socialist and then learn how to dumpster dive!) This is my understanding of the 2nd A.

    As a kid thru out the 60s, I swam off the shores of Lake Erie. In the 70s it was a no go. Today I’d swim there again. Good job EPA. The air in LA ( in the mid 70s ) was so thick, many days I couldn’t see the mountains a mile away. Today is better, isn’t it? But when does a government program do it’s job and then shrink? More and more things need to be “regulated” so the next generation of government workers can keep earning. Whatever happened to the gold river in Colorado? Even our military doesn’t know when to downsize. My father fought in WW2. Went to Europe, put down Hitler (the real one!) and came HOME (along with millions of other GIs) And God help you if you’re waiting for your miracle drug to make it through the FDA.

    My point is – Bureaucracy is a living growing entity that (like weeds) needs to be pruned OFTEN. You really learned to exercise from government funded research? I guess I was more fortunate to have friends and family teach me these things (especially my father!).

    Robo calls and phishing email I’ll handle myself, and consider it a small price to pay to keep my government overlords from telling me how to live my life 😉

    BTW, can anyone tell me how a plastic straw in Las Vegas will wind up in the Pacific Ocean? These paper straws are useless!

  73. Athos says:

    Thanks for doubling (or tripling!) down, little p. You are the shining example of the new Democratic Party!

  74. Steve says:

    “The 2nd Amendment says well regulated, not well trained, Steve.”

    There you go again. I never used the word “trained” and the militia is to be well regulated and staffed with citizenry who own their own weapons.

    And later on, you confirm exactly what I say!

    As for those spoofed robocalls, the FCC is enabling private telco to block the numbers they know are spoofed. Until now, all telco’s have been required to connect and blocking any was considered against the rules laid out by regulation. In fact, what we are getting are more regulations over ruling those existing regulations…tangled regulation game.

  75. Steve says:

    Athos, the USA hardly makes the list. Considering our population and how much plastic we use, the USA is actually one of the best in handling our plastic waste.

    https://www.statista.com/chart/12211/the-countries-polluting-the-oceans-the-most/

  76. Anonymous says:

    Remember when the far right lunatic dogs were talking about watering the free of liberty with the blood of patriots because our president and the Congress passed a law to provide healthcare to the citizens of this country?

    Now their silence is deafening over their cheers for a tyrant who has obstructed an investigation into how he conspired with a foreign government or, in the words of those far right lunatics spewed so often throughout this country’s history until their cult leader wrested power from the majority of citizens in this country “the enemy”.

    Guess that whole blood for liberty thing was just a bunch of trash.

    You guys man.

  77. Steve says:

    No, Patrick.
    That yoke has become yours to bear.

    You seem to doing well with it.

  78. Rincon says:

    I have to agree about the straws. The whole issue appears to be strictly symbolic.

    I think the Viet Nam War though, showed us just how difficult it is to put down a rebellion if your cause is unpopular. We had the best weaponry on the planet and struggled fighting against peasants armed with old rifles, punji sticks and the like, although there was some more advanced ordinance as well. I don’t see how it’s realistic to be paranoid about our government getting all of the guns some day, especially when it is so ineffective fighting drugs, which have been targeted for elimination for decades. While we continue to sit on our hands, we have one of the highest murder rates in the advanced world, which prompts me to ask, what’s wrong with us?

    Since our federal government spends less as a percentage of GDP than it did in 1960 (notwithstanding Medicare and SS), the claim that government keeps growing relentlessly appears to be specious. As for interfering with our personal freedom, I think it was much worse in 1960 when 18 year olds could be essentially plucked off of the streets to serve in the armed forces involuntarily.

    If the law required the telcos to connect, then why have the Republicans done nothing to change the law? Come to think of it, what did the 100% Republican controlled Congress do when it had the chance except to expand our national debt with tax cuts for the rich?

  79. Steve says:

    “we have one of the highest murder rates in the advanced world” the word “advanced” is a classic cherry pick.
    Compared to the world, the USA is among the the countries with lowest murder rates, ranking about 90 on the list of a few more than 200 countries, but the rate drops off fast from number one.
    (And, including suicides is another cherry picked to hype the figures. You didn’t do that this time)

    “If the law required the telcos to connect,”….not law, regulation. Bureaucrats interpreting law over the century’s since the invention of electronic communications came into being.
    It’s not a partisan issue. (Though you seem to really WANT it to be) Though , if you think about it, it IS finally being done under Republican control…so there goes your hype, again.

  80. Steve says:

    What this tracker tells me is,this year alone, 291 people have decided to kill as many other people as they could.

    We have a people problem.

    If we don’t solve the people problem, the killing will continue unabated, no matter what the instrument used happens to be.

    https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

  81. Rincon says:

    If you feel that it is more appropriate to compare ourselves relative to countries such as Guatemala and Haiti so that we can slap ourselves on the back for our “successes”, instead of trying to emulate the countries more successful than us in various ways, then you are welcome to your opinion.

    As for the telecom “regulation”, its status as a regulation is irrelevant to my point. The point was that Congress has the power to rectify it and has failed to do so.

    I agree that we have a people problem. I disagree with gun control advocates that consider it a silver bullet. I also am extremely disappointed that Conservatives have no potential solutions to offer. All they are interested in is shooting down the primary solution offered by liberals. A very destructive mindset. Bad for our country.

  82. Steve says:

    If you want to limit comparison to only that which you approve, you will always have your opinion justified.
    No other will ever measure up.
    So all countries need to be on the list.

    Congress has been in both party hands over the decades, blaming one over the other is inappropriate, to say the least.

    Yup, if we ignore the people problem, we will never find any answers.
    And attacking video games is also ignoring the people problem, but it is a step closer to it. ( Video games tend to be the Republicans whipping boy. And you insist they aren’t being as silly as Democrats. It’s just not as well advertised.)

  83. Rincon says:

    Well, I might have to agree. After all, I’ve been spoiled. We were #1 in just about everything when I was young. Now, we’re around number 30 or 40 in a number of areas but hey, at least we’re better off than the “shithole nations”. I should be a better cheerleader.

    Somehow, you’ve misunderstood me. It’s not only Republicans who voted to throw massive numbers of our citizens into jail or who failed to address our short life spans, although they generally have been more egregious in ignoring these problems.

    Interesting that you complain about an extremely vague “people problem”, without specifying anything at all. Apparently, just as Conservatives have no answers for our violent culture, neither do you.

  84. Most taxes are regressive.

  85. Steve says:

    Well, it is a people problem. And any attempt to solve it will be a total failure unless it primarily concentrates on people instead of things.

    This is why I have begun to look at so called “Red Flag” actions. Coupled with dedicated investigators actively watching such social media as 8Chan, GAB and the rest for publicly available posts and watching people for indications of potential activity, I could see this type of law as a useful step in the right direction.

  86. Steve says:

    Rincon, this seems to voice what I have been saying. Short read.

    Short take, speech is protected, inciting violence is criminal. It’s a people problem.

    https://www.apnews.com/05a358527d994a47b40950dacb37cba9

  87. Bill says:

    Now we have two more deranged young men (Ohio and Texas) who have senselessly slaughtered innocent people.

    One is alleged to have been a white supremacist and one is alleged to be an ultra liberal that hates ICE.

    Two evil perpetrators were the ones who apparently carried out these senseless murders. Neither guns nor Donald Trump had anything to do with these tragedies anymore than Bernie Sanders or guns had to do with the attack upon Steve Scalise and other Congressmen. I was gratified to hear the President speak out today and ask for bi-partisan efforts to solve this national aberration.

    Steve, your recognition that ‘red flag’ laws merit discussion is well taken. There are usually warning signs before such events. The problem is recognizing them and doing something about them. The average citizen is ill equipped to do so. Even if alarmed, where do they go? And, just as importantly, what can be done?

    There will be some necessary changes in the laws. One problem that faces the enactment of red flag laws is that such laws tend to expedite and ease some procedural and constitutional barriers to mental evaluation. .

    When I started out as a young prosecutor, it was relatively easy to require individuals to undergo mental evaluation if they were perceived as posing a threat to themselves or to others. It is not so easy today. That may be a good or bad thing. Together with our mental health deficiencies it deserves to be discussed.

    It would be hoped that our political leaders and the public can have a thoughtful discussion of possible causes and possible remedies without more puerile name calling or political posturing.

  88. Steve says:

    Burying GAB, 8Chan, Daily Stormer and the rest is the wrong approach. These sites provide an output for those people to vent.
    If we stifle them, those people will simply go further underground and their frustrations will be felt, probably in more devastating ways.
    Keep in mind, it’s not just guns. Pressure Cookers were used with equally devastating results.
    (If memory serves, the pressure cookers bombers also posted stuff online)

    The availability of a heads up is beginning to show itself, we should use it from both ends of the spectrum, from control and mitigation to warning and prevention.

    We all know about the 8Chan white supremacist nutcase.
    Snopes confirms the satanic Liz Warren supporter was the shooter in Dayton.
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dayton-shooter-warren/

    Take away their discussion boards and they will find others.
    Take away their guns and they will use other means…IED’s are very deadly. Just ask an Iraq War veteran.

  89. Rincon says:

    Your link is certainly a step in the right direction, Steve, and I thank you for it. The point you and Bill made about red flag laws is also well taken. Unfortunately, extremist attacks represent only a small fraction of our murders. Any ideas for the everyday crimes that get little news coverage?

    It seems clear to me that rather than providing healthy catharsis, the practice of finding your favorite echo chamber creates more extremism, not less.

  90. Rincon says:

    It might also go well if certain people stopped supporting the Enabler in Chief in his every action, including this one:

    “President Donald Trump responded to the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings by insisting Monday that “mental illness pulls the trigger not the gun,” but shortly after taking office he quietly rolled back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it harder for people with mental illness to buy guns.” “The Obama rule that Trump nullified had added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their financial affairs to the national background check database.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-trump-made-it-easier-mentally-ill-get-guns-when-n1039301

  91. Steve says:

    Unfortunately? I think not. I think it very fortunate we have begun to discuss causes well before these things can get out of control.
    Hopefully.

    Also, thankfully the homicide rate in the USA is not as large as many want you to believe.
    Separate, successful, suicides from the stat and things get a lot clearer. Attempted suicides shouldn’t be a part of the stats, but in many studies they are.

  92. Rincon says:

    I guess that if our suicide rate is so high that it makes our homicide rate appear far higher compared to other countries, the pregnant question is, why is our suicide rate so much higher than theirs? After all, suicide rates are a reasonable proxy for a misery index. But separating suicides, our intentional homicide rate is still higher than any European nation except for Russia and Ukraine. Also higher than Japan, Australia, Canada, and dozens of other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

  93. Rincon says:

    As a small fraction of an answer to Athos, in reference to the El Paso shooter: “The shooter’s alleged document mentions a Hispanic invasion, the increasing Hispanic population and a decision by its writer to target Hispanics after reading a right wing conspiracy theory asserting Europe’s white population is being replaced with non-Europeans.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/he-failed-mention-latinos-el-paso-residents-respond-trump-s-n1039436

    Gee, I wonder how thoughts like that could have entered his head.

  94. Steve says:

    The other day I found one that had us at 87 and you took issue with it.
    Today you find one that has us at 94 (lower than Canada, against what you claim to have read.) and claim it proves the USA is horrible.

    Moreover, you change the subject from mass murder to “misery index” !!!

    now, that…… is to laugh.

  95. Steve says:

    I had your chart sorted wrong, Rincon…but it still supports my link from the other day with the USA at 89.
    And you are still changing the topic from mass murder to “misery index”

    I note you “overlook” the political leanings of Liz Warren’s Satanic supporter from Dayton, Rincon.
    But, that seems to be the PC thing to do, good ol’ Liz is avoiding the “hell” out of it too.

  96. Rincon says:

    Really Steve? You celebrate our greatness by comparing us to the likes of Haiti and Sudan? I guess my standards are just a little higher. BTW, read the chart again. We are not ranked #94. We happened to be the 94th entry. The countries are grouped by continent, not by homicide rates. Our rate is 5.3/ 100,000; Canada’s is ever so slightly below us at 1.8.

    My “change of subject”? You were the one to bring up suicides. All I did was to show that your claim was largely untrue or perhaps irrelevant. The bit about a misery index was indeed a digression. I will happily withdraw the comment if it confuses you.

    As for the Liz Warren supporter, see my post about the near nonexistence of left wing terrorism. I just put it in. Ridiculous that you guys ignore the absolute epidemic of right wing terrorism, but are quite willing to latch onto a single aberration as if it was one of many. It is not!

  97. Steve says:

    Rincon, you made the same error as I.
    Sort the column. Then you will see it.

    And we must compare across the board or people will cherry pick their goal posts and move them at will.

    Go back and check, you changed it from Mass murder to all murder. At that point I broke it out.

    I provided a link about mass murderers, I suggest you read it. There is no one source of mass murderer, they are all individuals with differing politics and all the rest.
    If course, you will continue to insist otherwise, after all that’s what TV keeps telling you to think.

  98. Athos says:

    “Gee, I wonder how thoughts like that could have entered his head.” The swarmy answer is “Cause he lives near El Paso” but the real answer is “he’s mentally unbalanced and has no belief in a Higher Power (aka God)”.

    But God has been removed from the public square, hasn’t He? I’m old enough to remember a time when that wasn’t so. When was belief in God and proclaiming His Love removed from Public Structures? I’ll give you a hint. Madalyn Murray O’Hair

    When were crazy people released into the public (and Mental Institutions shut down)? I’ll give you another hint – the movie “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” was released in 1975.

    Coincidence?

    The term “fundamental right wing” is still unclear to me, Rin. Are you including people that believe in the Rule of Law and want us to follow the original intent of the Constitution, like Clarence Thomas?

    Or are you including mentally unbalanced nutcases like the kid in El Paso (but not Elizabeth Warren supporters like the kid in Dayton)?

  99. Rincon says:

    Go back and read the posts, Steve. Although we were talking about gun control, it was you that brought up homicides and suicides: “Also, thankfully the homicide rate in the USA is not as large as many want you to believe. Separate, successful, suicides from the stat and things get a lot clearer.” (August 5 – 9:17 PM)

    You are correct that I originally said there were few left wing mass murderers. Sorry if you’re confused, but in this context, mass murderer is synonymous with terrorist killer. This is because, as I carefully explained from your link, there are 3 kinds of mass murderers – familial, crime associated, and public. It’s obvious that familial and crime related murders are not political; therefore, in those cases, whether a perp is left or right wing is entirely irrelevant. This means only public mass murders relate in any way to left vs right wing.

    That being said, there’s been little such confusion in our discussions for a long time. There was in the past and that may have hypersensitized us a bit. Hopefully, we can simply use the dictionary definitions and address the words used in that way. If you feel I’ve misused a word, I would like you to point it out, but throwing out a blanket statement accusing me of misusing terminology without specifying in which posts I used them stifles a good conversation.

    I could also use a little help in deciphering just what “sort the column” means. Can you give me a hint?

  100. Steve says:

    No, Rincon. You brought the murder rate into this.
    See here.
    https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/it-is-not-the-job-of-investigators-to-exonerate/#comment-79500

    The topic, in light of recent events, across several threads; is mass murderer. It is not parsed. You insist on parsing the hell out of it.

    At the top of the column you will find double arrow heads pointing up and down. Click to sort the table by the column selected.

  101. Rincon says:

    As long as you insist that the topic is only the general term, mass murder, then there’s not much to discuss, since the three types differ so much.

  102. Steve says:

    It is certain people are different, which makes people who commit mass murder different from one another as well.
    Never the less, the outcome is the same. Which means the term “mass murder” is the term, not general at all, the term is the term to use.

    Parsing is a method of making some things lessor than others so the desired ones become the focus.

    Tell that to the survivors. Their murderer isn’t as important as the others because their mass murderer isn’t in one of the special groups singled out for attention.

  103. Rincon says:

    Who said anything is less important? The flu pandemic of 1918 and WWII were both very important, but lumping them together in order to understand them is useless. Likewise, lumping together a drug deal gone bad with some nut case who kills his family with a politically motivated terrorist attack is unlikely to shed much light on anything.

    But hey, we’re spinning our wheels. On to the next topic.

  104. Steve says:

    Mass murder is not “lumping together” anything. And you, again, try to use an apples to oranges comparison to force it.

    Read the LA Times piece I linked. It details the 4 areas all these nutcases have in common.

    You just want to keep things limited to a scope supporting your moving goal posts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s