Deranged Rhino

The eyes always give the crazies away.

I spent a lot of time covering Omidyar in this thread and the Q thread... he's deep, deep IC.

https://mobile.twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1226499634752782336 ? https://mobile.twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1226331950081806336 And new filing in the Flynn matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1226555010072313856

I never said it was. I said people should face legal consequences if the evidence and due process merits it. No one has ever argued that the justice system is 100% effective. You're shifting arguments from the extreme to the absurd now... because why? We agree that if people break the law they should face consequences regardless of their positions within the government. That's all we're talking about. You've now switched from what we think should happen to a discussion of how it would work. That's dishonest. The principle that is not complicated is what was stated above: if people break the law, they should face consequences regardless of their position or status. And we agree. The rest of this post is noise, dishonesty, and your attempt at trolling. It's shoddy work.

He's on a tear today

I happily admit I'm wrong all the time when I am. This is not one of those cases. You twisting words, omitting other words, to make a point doesn't make mine wrong. It makes you dishonest. I've given it. If they violate the law and the constitution they should be held accountable as every other citizen would be. Again, this isn't complicated, yet you're trying to make it so for reasons which escape me. So -- because it's possible to go to far, we shouldn't even try to clean up our system? That's the position you're staking out now? Then we agree. Told you it was simple. I have corrected you and clarified. You continue to stretch it to the extreme. And I answered them in full. That you don't like the answer doesn't make it any less true. I was attempting to have a conversation with you, which clearly is not what you're interested in. My initial comment was quite simple: if there's evidence and due process applied, then yes, I'd support a cleaning out of the government bureaucracy. The Nuremberg example was brought up when you asked where the line should be drawn between leaders and foot soldiers. There wasn't a line drawn in Nuremberg, and there shouldn't be here. Again, it's not complicated unless you're trying to intentionally misconstrue what I'm saying -- which you are. Because you're dishonest. You're the only one who's said treason. And you didn't draw it out of me, I led with the premise that if crimes are committed backed by evidence and due process, then the guilty should be shown the same fate as any one of us would be. That's where I started. You're terrible at this. If you broke the law, you face the consequences -- regardless of your position, or level. It's simple.

It's not wrong. But carry on. And yet, you are putting words in my mouth, and omitting key qualifiers. (Because you're dishonest and can't argue what I actually said) So, rather than take what I said as my opinion, you wish to intuit what you think I really mean? And you consider this an honest way to have a conversation? Please note, while you're doing all this work to stretch my words to the extreme you have refused to answer the very simple question put to you: namely, are people who serve in government above the law or not? If you don't think they are, then we're on the same page. My position is that we are a nation of laws, not men. Full stop. I've called for due process for the accused, that's not what Stalin nor Robespierre wanted or pushed for. You're inventing my position, because you can't argue the facts. Because you're being dishonest. I'm talking about justice, not retribution. No one, but you, has said everyone would be tried for treason. There are numerous other offenses and crimes which they can/should be tried for that are not capital offenses. Your dishonesty is showing again.

You began this conversation asking where the line should be drawn in terms of purging the government of bad actors. I offered, and explained, Nuremberg as an example of how it went beyond leadership to the government drones. That is the point. I'm not suggesting that. You're trying to spin what I said into that because you are uncomfortable (for some reason) with what I actually said. What I actually said is that if there is evidence to support it, and the accused are given due process, then those who break the law should face the same legal consequences as the rest of us. Why are you resisting that so much? It's not controversial. It's not extreme -- yet you're trying to twist it into the extreme. Why? Do you not think that those who break the law should face punishment, regardless of their positions within the government? Or are you advocating what we've had for the past 70+ years -- a system where the political elite can rape, pillage, and plunder without consequence? "Just doing their jobs" when they know "doing their jobs" is violating the constitution is not an excuse. They should face the same punishment as the rest. This isn't complex. I'm aware of what the punishment for treason is. It's the same as it was when half the media (and yourself) were accusing Trump of treason without evidence to support it.

I agree there's no valid reason for it, but they did it anyway. This isn't opinion, it's a fact. The question you should ask is what happened to all those Nazis who were injected into our intelligence community, our defense community, our contracting community... I didn't say that. I added the parenthetical for a reason. My words aren't controversial, or shouldn't be. If people are shown to have broken the law, with evidence and after they are afforded due process, they should be held accountable. The real question to ask, is why you find that proposition so extreme? Do you believe that if you work in the government you're not subject to the constitution or the law itself?

The US kept thousands of Nazis hidden. Yes. The Soviets did not hide them, they executed them. We used them for our own intelligence purposes and scientific purposes (and denied doing so until the late 1990s). It's called Project Paperclip. If you want to understand what's actually happening in this country today, and the ongoing war, you have to understand Paperclip.

It does indeed answer it. If laws are broken, they should be treated the same as you or I would be if we were to have done the same. No one is talking about a "purge" without evidence or due process, that's not in our best interest as a republic. But what we also are not talking about is letting people slide on criminal offenses simply due to the position they hold in government.

It is correct -- hence my parenthetical.

My reference was to the fact that it wasn't just the big wigs and leaders who were tried. They were tried first, but then after them we had trials for the judges, the guards, lawyers and cops who were "just following orders". Some were found innocent, some found guilty, but all faced judgement (but for the ones the US and Soviets kept hidden -- but that's a different topic). That's how we got the Nuremberg principles, which the UN made into law in case ordinary government jobs became criminal again. We're long overdue for a reckoning of that level within our federal/state/local bureaucracies.

How did the Nuremberg trials go again? Exactly. We live in a nation of LAWS, not MEN. If people break the law, regardless of their position or status, they should face the same legal consequences as anyone else would. We live in a country whose leaders have been stealing from us, poisoning our food and water, spying on us, and draining our natural and financial resources for their own gain for our entire lives. They've been allowed to continue their operations because they're "above the law". No more.

Name one.

That would be the case if the DNC wasn’t crooked. They don’t want Bernie to win and will see to it you get Mayor Pete instead.

Backed by evidence w due process, yup.

They haven't. In fact, they have gone out of their way to avoid definitively answering that exact question. The only report which did confirm it was the ICA in January of '17 -- which has since been proven to bunk, a political document rather than an honest intelligence assessment.

Vol I of Mueller's own report says that there was nothing there. Not Trump. Facts are hard when you don't read the material you're citing. Wikileaks was interferring by releasing 100% accurate information for the voters to decide themselves? Funny how scared you are of truth. Not even Mueller found those "suspicious contacts" were in any way suspicious at the end. They were, in fact, traps set by the HRC campaign as the OIG proved. Again, you're demonstrating how much of a partisan slob you are. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

The single dumbest senator in congress today. Just listening to her voice drops your IQ by 5 points.