ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,436 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
Just now, Wacka said:
Most likely because of the pork the dems jammed dinto it.
It was essentially the same bill they already approved. It was only up for another vote for technical corrections.
They most likely changed their mind because the Dems are pursuing an unrelated reconciliation bill.
-
Just now, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
Right, wouldn’t you rather see a proper Doj process etc than the dog and pony show?
-
From Military Times:
"The Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act — better known as the PACT Act — had been up for a procedural vote in the chamber with an expectation of final passage before the end of the week.
The measure is the culmination of years of work by advocates to improve health care and benefits for veterans suffering injuries from burn pit smoke, Agent Orange spraying and other military contaminant exposure. It has been widely celebrated as a potential landmark legislative victory in veterans policy.
The measure passed the Senate by a comfortable 84-14 vote in early June, and by a 342-88 vote in the House two weeks ago with significant Republican support.
But on Wednesday, after technical corrections sent the measure back to the Senate for another procedural vote, 41 Senate Republicans blocked the measure, leaving its future uncertain."
The bill was good enough for the GOP last month, but suddenly providing benefits to our veteran's is no longer acceptable.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Post-Roe, many autoimmune patients lose access to ‘gold standard’ drug
25. Pharmacist denied medication to 8 year old with juvenile arthritis because she was of "child bearing potential"
As abortion ban is reinstated, doctors describe 'chilling effect' on women's care
26. Pharmacy denied prescription to assist with IUD insertion
Because of Texas abortion law, her wanted pregnancy became a medical nightmare
27. Patient's water broke at 18 weeks and they began experiencing cramps, vomiting, and passing clots of blood and discharge. The pregnancy was given a 0% chance of viability but she was denied an abortion. The patient had to wait until the symptoms got worse before the hospital would induce her so she could deliver stillborn
College-shopping students have a new query: Is abortion legal there?
28. High school students are changing where they apply to college to ensure access to abortion while in college
Women with chronic conditions struggle to find medications after abortion laws limit access
29. Insurance company told patient they would no longer cover her medicine for Crohn's disease because it might be used for an abortion
30. Pharmacy stops prescription for patient with rheumatoid arthritis because it could be used for abortion
31. Pennsylvania doctor has had multiple patients who were unable to get refills of their rheumatoid arthritis medication
Texan has out-of-state abortion to end heartbreaking and dangerous pregnancy, she says
32. Patient whose pregnancy was nonviable and could put her at serious risk had to travel out of state for an abortion
33. Doctor had to delay care and go to an ethics board for approval to treat an ectopic pregnancy
34. Doctors have been told to wait until patients with ectopic pregnancies are unstable before treating them
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
There is direct evidence of him knowingly directing clearly illegal activity?
if so great, bring that to trail and lock him up. Enough with all the theatrics and this oscar winning level production “hearing” that’s costing tens of millions of dollars.
Mike Pence's counsel testified under oath that Eastman told Trump that the plan was illegal at a meeting.
Additionally, there is an email from Eastman stating that there is no legal support for the plan to have Pence reject certification.
https://time.com/6188491/john-eastman-jan-6-testimony-trump/
However, the decision to actually do anything about this lies with the DoJ, not the Jan 6 committee.
-
16 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
Who can *prove* he knew he lost and tried to change it???
like anyone who paid any attention to this tools behavior, I have zero doubt he himself believed and still believes he actually won.
being delusional and saying stupid and irrational things isn’t a convict-able offense, otherwise BillStime and Tibs would be roommates at Leavenworth.
I agree that he is delusional and honestly believes that he won. That makes proving intent very difficult.
However, for conspiracy to defraud the United States, prosecutors can show evidence (that we have already seen) of advisors like Eastman telling him that their scheme was illegal and Trump deciding to move forward with it anyway. That's a pretty strong piece of evidence of intent to commit fraud, regardless of whether or not he believes he won the election.
-
2 hours ago, 716er said:
Anything signed by Jim Jordan has zero credibility. There are also zero quotes from any of the whistleblowers in Jim's letter.
“Jim Jordan covered up sexual abuse and is somehow incapable of wearing a suit coat, but he’s a totally trusty source whenever his lunatic rantings match my conspiracy of the moment”-Idiots.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
I think a lot of the pissing and moaning is the allegation that Trump suggested and "encouraged" replacing some electoral college representatives in states he lost with others that would override the voters choice and change their vote in the Electoral College.
But in 2016 numerous Democratic officials went on the record suggesting the electors be pressured and coerced to change their votes to Hillary. So how many of them got indicted, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced? None. Because 1) they were Democrats, 2) they were members of the political class, 3) they were members of the perpetual war uni-party. I guess the logic is they did it, anything goes for them, and the rules and laws don't apply in the pursuit of "good". Only the other guys need to follow the law.
The idea that 2020 was the same as what the Democrats did in 2016 is just false and relies on a misunderstanding of the facts.
- 2016: Some Democrats call for "faithless electors" which are duly elected electors to choose someone other than the winner of the popular vote in the state.
- 2020: Trump engages in a conspiracy to replace the duly elected electors with a slate of electors of his choosing.
One of the purposes of the electoral college is so that it could act as an intermediate body to prevent a dangerous candidate from being elected. The founders were concerned that a candidate might whip up the masses and wanted the electors as a check against that.
Had Trump tried to convince the actual electors to change their votes to him, that would have been similar to 2016. Instead, he and/or his advisors had them create fraudulent documents in an attempt to overthrow the election.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
15 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
If that's standard, then it aligns perfectly with the title of this thread.
Unless you think that people should be charged with crimes that there exists no evidence for, in order to get defendants to plea to something else
There's nothing else to call that except corrupt.
I don't think people should be charged with crimes without evidence. Thankfully, that's not what happened here.
So, while the system is definitely in need of reform, the DoJ is not making things up to get political actors.
-
2
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Ignoring, as per usual with you, the lack of any evidence the DOJ had to charge Tanios in the first place.
So yeah locking someone up for 5 months without sufficient evidence, thereby destroying his business and having a hostile media label him as a cop killer is not how its supposed to "work"
The charges were reduced because he's pleading guilty... That is pretty standard.
DoJ charges person with crime. Person negotiates to plead to lesser crime. DoJ agrees, expensive trial is avoided, case closed.
I think there are fair critiques to this process, but this is all in alignment with how things work across the country and his treatment is no different.
-
44 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Case in point. DC gulag.
The average length of pretrial detention is 50-200 days:
(from page 7)
"Most directly, the amount of time that a person is detained if they are unable to afford bail is substantial, ranging from 50 to 200 days, depending on the felony offense. The pretrial detention period is also growing, compounding the costs to those who cannot afford bail."
These guys were arrested on March 14th, which was 135 days ago. They are still within the average length for pretrial detention. It's not a political gulag, this is just how our system "works".
Also, given the sheer number of people who were arrested in DC in conjunction with January 6th, it's likely that the volumes are overwhelming the system, leading to delays in hearings.
If you want to argue that this is not how justice should work in America, that maybe we should have fewer people in pre-trial detention and maybe we should properly resource our courts to avoid lengthy delays for cases to be heard, then I think you'd find a lot of agreement from those on the political left.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, T master said:
Does any of this really matter ? Even if there is proof that he did nothing as in the Russian collision thing & there is proof that it was all paid for by the other party & that FISA warrants were rewarded on false claims or in layman terms lies .
You won't believe any of it any way ! If he was totally 100% exonerated in all & every way you would still have your bias & hatred running rapid against him & you will still continue as always to blow smoke up any one ass that will listen despite any proof or facts .
But with that being said if he is found guilty i for one will say throw his ass in prison as they would any of us if we were guilty !
It should make no difference past/current POTUS if you broke the law & there is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt or a eye witness go directly to jail do not pass go do not collect any money . PERIOD !!
I think we have enough evidence to charge several people close to Trump, and Trump himself, with conspiracy to defraud the United States. If a jury acquits him, then we *have* to accept that.
Whether or not Garland has the stones to actually do it, remains another question.
-
14 minutes ago, B-Man said:
FTA:
As I’ve shared before, I just don’t get the whole “false electors” obsession nor do I see any illegality in it. All it entailed was a group of self-chosen “alternative” electors making a purely ceremonial and non-legally biding commitment to vote for Trump if decertification happened. I’m not going to argue with those that find that objectionable, but there’s a difference between objectionable and criminal.
None of the “false electors” ever cast a vote for anything, they didn’t interfere with the election, and the original electors cast their votes for Joe Biden. If that’s what the DOJ is probing, good luck proving a “seditious conspiracy” without any actual attempt at sedition on the record. Besides, how can something be a conspiracy when the plans were public knowledge at the time?
Moving on to the idea that Trump criminally conspired to obstruct a government proceeding, that doesn’t make much sense either. Trump was asking former Vice President Mike Pence to do something he felt was legal under the Electoral College Act. It is not “obstructing” a government proceeding if you intend to use legal mechanisms to reach your goal.
Yes, in the end, Pence decided he didn’t believe he had the power, but obviously, Trump thought otherwise. There’s no intent there. Are we going to start criminalizing all possible misinterpretations of law by politicians? Because that would be quite the can of worms to open.
In the end, the DOJ’s pursuit, if the Post’s sourcing is accurate, just seems like a big reach to please the January 6th committee and Democrats at large. Still, it’s probably best to just embrace the chaos at this point. Things are so far off the rails that you might as well kick back and enjoy the show. Let’s see how charging Trump criminally for a bunch of probable non-crimes works out.
The fake electors signed documents that they were the true electors and transmitted those documents to the national archive. That is fraud. There is no legal justification for their actions.
Where the conspiracy to defraud comes into play is that some of Trump's advisors wanted the fake electors to take those actions so that when Pence rejects the certification, they can have Congress vote on which slates of electors to accept, hoping they would select the fake electors and overturn the election.
Here is a timeline of the scheme: https://www.justsecurity.org/81939/timeline-false-alternate-slate-of-electors-scheme-donald-trump-and-his-close-associates/
-
1
-
1
-
-
I understand why everyone focuses on the violence of January 6th, but a charge under 18 U.S. Code § 2384 is probably the least likely charge due to the difficulty in proving intent.
If Trump himself actually faces a charge, it is far more likely to be either 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States or 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees.
Given what we've seen in the reporting, it seems the DoJ is very interested in the fake electors scheme, which would likely fall under conspiracy to defraud the United States.
All of that being said, I am skeptical that Merrick Garland would approve an indictment of Trump himself, even if it ends up being a slam dunk case.
-
50 minutes ago, Irv said:
Nothing to see here. Pelosi looking for hot stock tips for her husband in Taiwan.
She’s gotta check out some of the chip manufacturers to know which ones to buy stock in… err… include in the CHIPS bill…-
3
-
1
-
-
I see we’ve gotten to the “make fun of someone for identifying themselves at an event for people with disabilities, including the visually impaired” part of the discourse.
Truly, lovely people right here.
-
51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Goose, I’ve come to respect the depth and reasoning that you come to your opinions but no matter how many REALLY LONG entries you post they’re still just your opinions. Try and respect other people’s opinions. I think you’ll find it to be fun!
Yes, it is my opinion that allowing states to legislate rights is dangerous and in this case will result in increases of maternal morbidity, uncertainly in healthcare, and pave a nice slope for zealots to see how many things that Americans currently enjoy they can outlaw. -
45 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Nice Goose. When you don’t get your way, start tossing out the asinine label. I’m willing to let the legislature give it a try. You apparently are not. It doesn’t make me an ass. It just makes me a guy with a different opinion. DEAL WITH IT.
I think it’s fair to debate when life begins. That’s a reasonable thing to have differing opinions on.
But to look at the current abortion law landscape, their effects, and the trends, and to think that they are moving in a direction that balances the rights of women and their healthcare against that of the fetus takes an incredible amount of credulity.
-
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:
Wrong. First, let the legislature do its job. If cases arise from their legislative actions, then the court can rule, or the legislature can rewrite their legislation. Trust the Process.
“Trust the process” is an incredibly belittling and asinine response.All day, every day on this board, everyone talks about how corrupt all politicians are. How they don’t care about the people, only their own power and money.
And when we see something like a 10 year old rape victim having to cross state lines into Indiana, the actual reaction by politicians is for Indiana to pass tougher restricting and their AG to threaten to prosecute the doctor who performed the abortion.
In Texas, we see doctors waiting until a woman’s life is in danger to treat a non-viable pregnancy, and women who were trying to start families are now giving up because it’s too risky under the laws just passed by the legislature. A long-sought victory for “pro-life” people is resulting in an increase in sterilizations.
And in red states across the country, the reaction from politicians is to try to pass laws similar to those that resulted in these scenarios. Not prevent them, but to create more of them.
And your response is to ignore all of reality, put your blinders on, bury your head in the sand, and pretend none of this is happening and it will all magically be solved at some point in the nebulous future by virtuous legislatures responding to the will of the people.
How could anyone be convinced by that argument? It requires an insane amount of ignorance of reality.
-
1
-
-
Just now, SoCal Deek said:
And to quote you….and YOU get to be the one to decide for everyone else?
No. In the tradition of the founders, the courts should try to draw the lines on where our rights are. By abdicating this and leaving it to the states without any guardrails, we are asking for terrible things to happen.-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
Via a bad ruling that was overturned. Some states may continue with that guideline and others may not. There is no problem here. Just diversity.
Yeah, and if states decide that rapists get to decide the mothers of their children even if the would-be mothers are children themselves, that’s fine! It’s the process working!-
1
-
-
Just now, Boatdrinks said:
And therein lies the b*+<#. Who shall determine this? Some compromise will likely be reached on this issue, with limitations at a certain point. Not all states will rule on this the same way. This diversity will continue to be our strength, as we can freely choose the state in which we reside.
We had that compromise: bodily autonomy in first trimester, right of the baby in the third trimester and states could regulate in the second trimester. -
57 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Why is this so FREAKING hard? You do NOT have the right to kill to someone!!
So you, and solely you, get to determine when life begins? -
18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Shouldn't those additional rights be either spelled out in the Constitution or provided through the establishment of law by the Legislative branch? And not through Judicial proclamations or interpretations as the court is not in the business of granting or defining rights. Given that context, I'm not clear how the court ruling violates or contradicts the 9th amendment.
This is a good question, I’ll take a stab at explaining it.The text of the constitution generally talks about what the government itself can or cannot do. It explains the boundaries of the government.
However, at the time there was concern about the rights of the people themselves. So while the Constitution spoke to the government, the Bill of Rights was drafted to outline the rights of the people.
This was controversial, because how could you possibly list every single right a person has? Many founders were concerned that future generations would interpret the Bill of Rights to be an exhaustive list of rights and that if something does not appear in its text, then it is not a right. The consequences of them not thinking of a right they believe in while drafting the amendments could be massive.
The solution was the 9th amendment which states that just because a right isn’t listed in the text does not mean it doesn’t exist. This is where we’re find the unenumerated rights. It is further expounded through subsequent amendments like the 14th. The Bill of Rights explicitly states some important rights, but it is not exhaustive of all rights retained by the people.
So I think it is fair to say that part of the Supreme Court’s job is to draw some lines in that gray area. And we can debate about where the best place is to draw that line.
However, the argument that something isn’t a right simply because it doesn’t appear in the text of the constitution or its amendments is antithetical to what the founders intended.
It’s hard to argue that something left to a legislature is a reliable right since it can easily be revoked by the legislature. I’d also encourage you to think about things that are not explicitly stated in the constitution that maybe you wouldn’t want to leave to the whims of politicians. Interracial marriage, privacy, even the right to travel, are all unenumerated rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. Do you think all of these should be left to politicians to decide, or would it be better for those rights to be established guardrails that legislatures cannot override?
No Trading for Congresscritters: Something everyone here can get behind?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
No idea on whether this can pass, but I'm glad they're at least trying.
In my old job, I was restricted from trading individual stocks. It's insane that members of Congress can do it.