ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,334 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:
Around 400 per year in the United States. Nearly the same number of people killed by all rifles (450) which include bolt action, AR platforms, AK platforms, etc.
To answer your last question... about 400.
So about 1% of the people who die by guns in the US each year?
-
11 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:
Wouldn't matter if it's a gun or a hammer. If someone is determined to kill someone, they usually find a way to do it.
26 murdered in Japan, burned to death in March
Four stabbed in London in April
3 stabbed and killed in France
There are anecdotes and there is data. How many people are killed by hammers every year? How lethal are hammers? As in, if someone decides to kill someone with a hammer, how likely are they to succeed?
-
On 5/30/2022 at 3:48 PM, B-Man said:
If it was true that legislation could not reduce gun violence, we would see these problems in other peer countries.
But we don’t. They have the same problems we do with mental health, schools having doors, etc. But they don’t have the shootings we do. Not even close.
So it’s clear that *something* can be done to reduce gun deaths but some people would rather pretend otherwise.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
What’s the other 10 % chance? They are civic-minded? Pfft.
They promote themselves as reformed GOP activists who have seen the error of their ways and are truly working to defeat Trumpism.So there’s like a 10% chance that’s actually true.
-
20 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Is arming doctors the answer to hospital shootings?
If they’re not careful, they might give a patient the wrong shot…-
1
-
-
FYI: there’s like a 90% chance that The Lincoln Project is just a giant grift.
They occasionally do some cool stuff but most of their work is targeted at Lefty Twitter so that people will give them money for more cool ads that won’t do much.
-
2
-
-
On 5/26/2022 at 7:17 AM, eball said:
…any other TBDers headed to LA?
I will be there. Section 524, Row 5.
I balked a bit at the price, but my wife (a Bears fan) talked me into it.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Sussmann Juror Is Talking, and It's an Eye-Opener
by Nick Arama
As we reported earlier, Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of lying to the FBI, despite the evidence that he was working for the Clinton campaign and that he told FBI General Counsel James Baker that he was not working for any client. That raised questions as to how, given the evidence, you get a not guilty verdict in this case?
Now, part of the issue may have been judicial rulings that hindered Special Counsel John Durham’s case to some degree, as I noted. The other part may have been you likely started out with an unfavorable jury, to begin with, in D.C
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/05/31/sussmann-juror-is-talking-and-its-an-eye-opener-n572978
It is truly amazing that Hillary Clinton is so powerful that she controls all of Washington DC, the Democratic Party, the FBI, the Deep State, and other governments agencies to be named later. And she used that power to her advantage by coming up with a master plan to lose an election to a game show host who somehow managed to bankrupt multiple casinos.-
1
-
4
-
-
25 minutes ago, Albwan said:
They should be focusing on keeping guns out of the hands of the criminals and insane.
That's not what the leftists want...they want the innocent responsible gun owners guns.
They are ok with the crazies and criminals...they don't care about the criminals and the crazies
help their agenda.
Hi. Democrat here.
I would like to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals and the insane. I would also be in favor of spending more money on mental health.
I'm fine with upstanding citizens owning guns. Most of my family are gun owners.
-
2
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
So you propose a war on mental illness? Because any way you look at it, somebody has got to be out of their mind to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids.
1. More funding to help people with mental illness would be great
2. Mental illness is not the root cause of these shootings. Other rich countries have people with mental illness but they don't have the rate of mass shootings that we do.
-
1
-
-
At the request of @DRsGhost, I read the executive summary of the IG's report on Crossfire Hurricane. Here are my main takeaways:
1. The IG confirms that the FBI investigation into Russia was started when a friendly foreign government informed the FBI that Trump advisor George Papadopoulos told them that Russia had contacted him claiming to have damaging information on Clinton.
Mueller stated that this is how it all started and the IG confirmed it. The FBI was not made aware of the Steele Dossier until weeks after the investigation started. The IG confirmed that the opening of the investigation was properly predicated and in compliance with FBI policies and guidelines.
So can we finally stop with these claims that it was started by Clinton or the Steele Dossier?
2. The Carter Page FISA applications were incredibly flawed
While the IG found that the applications for FISA surveillance on Carter Page were not politically motivated, it also found that they omitted relevant information that should have been disclosed to the judge. FBI policy requires that the factual claims in a warrant are vetted by investigators but the Crossfire Hurricane team did not run them by Steele's handler before submitting the application. The handler told the IG that they would not have agreed to some of the statements on the applications.
Between the first application and the subsequent renewals, the IG found 17 separate issues with the applications.
3. Bruce Ohr's actions likely did not violate FBI policy, but those policies should be updated.
Ohr was not required to inform senior staff or his supervisors that he was communicating with Steele but he probably should have anyway. Ohr was also not required to disclose that his wife had previously done contracting work with FusionGPS, but it would have been better if he did disclose this. In both instances, the IG suggests the FBI update its policies to close these potential gaps.
4. Bottom Line: Why do people think this vindicates Trump?
After reading the report summary, I'm struggling to understand why Trump supporters find this to be some smoking gun that disproves the Mueller investigation. It actually confirms that the Steele Dossier was not the cause of the FBI's Russia investigation. The problems with Page's FISA applications are certainly serious but they do not invalidate what was discovered and most of the Mueller report deals with issues with the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia that do not involve Page. If you go so far as to throw out all of the Carter Page information, the Mueller report is still a damning document.
It also makes me confused why we have this long thread about the Sussman trial as if it was going to unravel a big conspiracy. The IG confirms that the Russia investigation was ongoing prior to Sussman meeting with the FBI. So even if Sussman had been found guilty and even if everything in the Steele Dossier had been thrown into the garbage immediately when it was handed over to the FBI, we would still have heaps of evidence of Russian contact with the Trump campaign from the already ongoing investigation.
From what I can tell, the IG report may lead to reforms with the FISA process, which would be great, but this report does almost nothing to invalidate the overall findings of the Russia investigation.
-
1 hour ago, DRsGhost said:
Just the executive summary will suffice. I've done that for the Mueller report already.
Sounds good. I’ve got a bit on my plate at the moment but should be able to get back to you in a day or two.56 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:I’ve never seen it. Ever since I was a victim in the Fleecing of Solaris, I don’t trust.
This perspective is the most interesting of the left talking points. It goes hand in hand with “Trump is so dumb they couldn’t get him.
I think this goes to the brilliance of the Democrat plan—-they knew, likely after extensive study into what makes liberal voters tick, that tying Trump to Russia had little to do with actually proving he committed something approximating treasonous activity. It had virtually nothing to do with the outcome of the investigation…they relied on the cumulative arrogance of their core to walk away wondering how every single player was dumb or incompetent for not seeing what was so clear to them—solid evidence of nothing was obviously proof of everything.
Credit to them, it was a solid plan.
Every Democrat I know wishes the party was as clever as you claim they are. -
9 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Always a good idea. So then you've read the IG report on Crossfire Hurricane and FISA's that fueled it?
I have not. It's fairly long, but I'll read it if you read the Mueller Report. I'll even do a book report if you'd like.
-
2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
The investigation was undertaken by political actors, the entire report prepared by political actors, Goose.
If I want manufactured intrigue and dramatic retelling of events that conclude with a plot that implodes from within, I’ll rent a George Clooney movie.
O Brother Where Art Thou is an excellent movie. Though I suppose it's more Coen Brothers than it is a typical Clooney movie despite him playing the lead.
Just now, Doc said:Whatever you may believe the Mueller report found, the Democrat-controlled Congress has taken zero action against Trump, despite still desperately wanting to get him (via J6 now). Ask yourself why?
I've answered this several times: the Democratic Party and its leadership is profoundly incompetent.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Actually, in this case, you're a man, typing on a message board, accusing another of "...blatant...intentional...misreading of the facts" because he views things differently than you do. You should take those issues up with Mueller or Barr, perhaps both.
I would love to take up the issue with Barr for misleading the country with his summary. If you know how to get in touch with him, let me know.
In the meantime, I would suggest reading the actual report, or even the executive summaries of the actual report written by the guy who wrote the report. The further away you get from the actual text, the easier it is for pundits and political actors to mislead.
-
16 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I just observed what was alleged, what was said, the actions of key players and the outcome.
QuoteA thorough review of the Mueller manifesto by AG Barr and the DOJ
I'm just a man, typing on a message board, asking people to please read primary sources
-
2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
The short, and correct version of the bottom line is no collusion, no obstruction, just a whole lot of people sowing seeds of distrust in our political process.
That is a blatant and intentional misreading of the facts that leads to the sowing of seeds of distrust.
Collusions isn't a crime and Mueller was not investigating collusion.
Mueller found ample evidence of obstruction but could not charge a sitting president.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Well thought out exchange of views, but I'll ask the same question I do anytime I see anyone quoting the validity of the Mueller investigation. Given the zeal of the anti-Trump camp to nail him for the smallest of infractions like j-walking, why hasn't anyone been indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for any crime or campaign violation if the investigation produced evidence of illegal activities such as conspiring with a foreign entity against the government? How can something that goes on for over a year and spends millions of dollars on legal fees and lawyers and interviews that produced tons of evidence just get a readout and then gets dropped? My read of the summary was Mueller's conclusion that they might be innocent but we can't prove it. A conclusion that defies the basic premise of the entire legal system. A presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt, not disprove it.
I think these are important questions and I will do my best to answer them. I will note that political news coverage is often of poor quality and legal news coverage is almost certainly to be of extremely poor quality. Therefore, coverage of a legal investigation with political implications is generally going to be terrible. Therefore, I want to stick to the facts of the investigation and not how it was covered or received by different camps. We can all pull hysterical coverage from various sources over the last several years to try to prove a point but that would just devolve into talking past each other instead of having a real, fact-based conversation.
1. [W]hy hasn't anyone been indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for any crime or campaign violation if the investigation produced evidence of illegal activities such as conspiring with a foreign entity against the government?
The biggest thing that differs in the Mueller report versus how it was covered in the public was the scope. Mueller notes that his remit from from the Department of Justice (DoJ) was to "investigate 'the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,' including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign." (Mueller Report, p1)
In accordance with this instruction, Mueller made the determination that, since "collude" is not a crime under federal law, he would apply the framework of conspiracy. Under federal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between to or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy)
So if you're reading through this, you can probably start to see where the problem for the Left is going to be. Mueller saw his scope as limited to what the Russians were doing and whether or not the Trump campaign had an actual agreement with them to commit crimes. He did not believe he had authority to look into Trump's potential business crimes or essentially any crimes that weren't a conspiracy with the Russians unless he happened to stumble upon them when looking into a potential conspiracy with the Russians.
As we know, Mueller was unable to establish that the Trump Campaign had an actual agreement with the Russians to interfere in the campaign. Which should not have been surprising because they did not need a formal agreement to coordinate with and benefit from the Russians.
So even though Mueller found ample evidence of the Trump Campaign meeting with Russians, soliciting help from them, benefitting from them, and providing them with information, if there was no actual agreement to a specific end (interfering in an election), Mueller did not feel he could charge a conspiracy.
Despite this, Mueller did secure 8 guilty pleas and a trial conviction based on crimes he did encounter during the investigation. Additionally, he spends over 100 pages documenting the connections between the Trump Campaign and the Russians.
Importantly, Mueller documented in Volume II that Trump himself had almost certainly broken the law by obstructing justice on several occasions. However, given that he felt he could not charge a sitting president, he declined to formally accuse Trump. This clearly reads as a roadmap to impeachment, especially since he cites to the Constitution's impeachment clause when explaining his rationale.
Yet, it seems that the Dems, knowing that they could never secure a win in the Senate no matter the facts, declined to take Mueller up on this and let Trump skate because they felt it wouldn't help their political position to get bogged down in a losing fight.
2. How can something that goes on for over a year and spends millions of dollars on legal fees and lawyers and interviews that produced tons of evidence just get a readout and then gets dropped?
Lots of reasons, but mostly: politics.
Democratic leadership was happy to hand off most of the investigative responsibilities to Mueller. While the Senate did have a serious intelligence investigation going on, the House was controlled by Republicans who did not want a real investigation so they let Devin Nunes just mess around to distract people. When Pelosi took the gavel in 2018, she likely had a mistaken idea of what Mueller was up to, assumed he had the goods and was happy to not launch a serious investigation into other potential crimes herself because it would be seen as partisan and cause her problems.
When the report finally came out in 2019, it was preceded by a misleading summary by Attorney General Bill Barr, allowing Trump and his team to claim total vindication before the actual text was available to refute that claim. There were days of Trump's team being elated and Dems being dejected. By the time we had the actual facts, the narrative was already set.
The Senate's bipartisan investigation actually did note that the Trump campaign had regular contact with Russians, expected to benefit from them and posed a threat to US national security. But the full report came out in late 2020, too late to make any major noise.
3. My read of the summary was Mueller's conclusion that they might be innocent but we can't prove it. A conclusion that defies the basic premise of the entire legal system. A presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt, not disprove it.
Mueller essentially concludes that, even though the Trump campaign was in constant contact with the Russians and benefitting from them, the elements of a conspiracy were not met since they did not have an actual agreement to interfere in the election.
He also mentions that he had the power to say if he felt that Trump was innocent of obstruction of justice, but that the evidence did not support such a statement. Still, he declines to formally accuse Trump of a crime because he believes he cannot indict Trump as a sitting president, and therefore Trump would not have a chance to clear his name at trial. Instead, he points out all of the areas that Trump met the elements of obstruction of justice and noted that the Constitutional remedy at hand was impeachment (this was important in his eventual Congressional testimony as he stated that a president can be indicted after they leave office).
Then, the Democratic Party did its most favorite thing in the whole world: shoot itself in the foot. With the exception of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Dems misplayed this entire thing from day one. Instead of having their own investigations into things that may be on the outskirts of Mueller's scope or other potential crimes (like Trump's business dealings), laying the groundwork for establishing (through their investigations and Mueller's) that Trump is corrupt and dangerous while building the case for impeachment, they sat on their hands and were shocked when they realized that Mueller wasn't going to do their work for them. At that point, they had failed to prep the country for an impeachment trial (even if they knew they would lose in the Senate), the winds had shifted against them and they were left standing there with no idea what to do next.
The bottom line is that the Trump campaign worked with, and benefitted from the Russians for years but because they did not meet all of the elements of a conspiracy, Mueller did not charge them. Mueller clearly felt that Trump should have been impeached at least for the obstruction but the Dems blew that opportunity because their leadership is generally incompetent.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
The verdict comes as no surprise given the composition of the jury and the guardrails the judge imposed on the prosecutions case. In one instance the judge overruled objections from the prosecution and allowed a woman to remain on the jury, even though her daughter and Sussmann’s daughter play on the same high school team. Three other jurors that identified as Clinton donors were allowed to serve. Based solely on the composition of the jury a guilty verdict would have been a surprise.
But the record of testimony made it clear the Clinton campaign was the source of the Russian collusion story, that they funded the misinformation research, and knew it as false when they approached the FBI to plant the seeds of their investigation.
The jury in the Manafort trial had MAGA people on it but they still convicted him. The idea that because someone donated to a specific campaign that they cannot be impartial in a jury trial is something people claim because they're grasping at straws. Do we have transcripts of the jury selection process? I would much rather look at primary sources than accuse someone of bias because it furthers a particular political angle. If Durham was concerned about particular members of the jury, he could have moved to strike them before the onset of the trial.
Jury trials routinely have guardrails put on them in terms of what evidence is allowed and what is not. It is part of the procedure for the attorneys to file motions in limine to argue that certain evidence should or should not be made available for the jury. Are you alleging that the judge made a material error in one of his rulings? And if so, which one and why? In any case, if that's true, Durham should appeal the case.
We also know that Clinton did not start the Russia investigation. This is spelled out pretty clearly in the Mueller report. I know I've mentioned this before, but I seriously recommend reading the Mueller report for yourself if you are interested in this topic. It has tons of evidence and primary sources but it is frequently taken out of context and straight up lied about by political actors to further their own agendas.
-
So what's next for the Durham investigation?
If Susman was supposed to be the first block in unraveling some big conspiracy and bring it all down, what comes next after Sussman is acquitted?
Really seems like the special counsel investigation into the special counsel is turning into a real nothingburger.
Maybe they need a special counsel to investigate the special counsel that investigated the special counsel so we'll finally know what really happened.
-
Sussman found not guilty.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
I stopped reading when the poster said this:For people looking for possible solutions to reducing gun deaths (elimination is possible but we should strive to save lives where we can)
Unless of course that was a typo and they meant to say elimination in NOT possible. 🤷🏻♂️
Whoops! Good catch. I meant not possible. I will edit.
-
For people looking for possible solutions to reducing gun deaths (elimination is not possible but we should strive to save lives where we can), I find this article from 2017 to have a helpful breakdown of potential solutions that are backed by data:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html
Some highlights of potential solutions:
QuoteGun enthusiasts often protest: Cars kill about as many people as guns, and we don’t ban them! No, but automobiles are actually a model for the public health approach I’m suggesting.
We don’t ban cars, but we work hard to regulate them — and limit access to them — so as to reduce the death toll they cause. This has been spectacularly successful, reducing the death rate per 100 million miles driven to less than one-seventh of what it was in 1946.
Frankly, liberal opposition to guns has often been ineffective, and sometimes counterproductive. The 10-year ban on assault weapons accomplished little, partly because definitions were about cosmetic features like bayonet mounts (and partly because even before the ban, such guns were used in only 2 percent of crimes).
The left sometimes focuses on “gun control,” which scares off gun owners and leads to more gun sales. A better framing is “gun safety” or “reducing gun violence,” and using auto safety as a model—constant efforts to make the products safer and to limit access by people who are most likely to misuse them.
What would a public health approach look like for guns if it were modeled after cars? It would include:
Background checks
22 percent of guns are obtained without one.
Protection orders
Keep men who are subject to domestic violence protection orders from having guns.
Ban under-21s
A ban on people under 21 purchasing firearms (this is already the case in many states).
Safe storage
These include trigger locks as well as guns and ammunition stored separately, especially when children are in the house.
Straw purchases
Tighter enforcement of laws on straw purchases of weapons, and some limits on how many guns can be purchased in a month.
Ammunition checks
Experimentation with a one-time background check for anybody buying ammunition.
End immunity
End immunity for firearm companies. That’s a subsidy to a particular industry.
Ban bump stocks
A ban on bump stocks of the kind used in Las Vegas to mimic automatic weapon fire.
Research ‘smart guns’
“Smart guns” fire only after a fingerprint or PIN is entered, or if used near a particular bracelet.
I think most of these are fairly reasonable starting points. And we already banned bump stocks in 2019, so that's one box already checked. I would also suggest de-gendering the domestic abuse one. Women can be abusers as well and should be subject to the same restrictions as men.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:
This is also 'cherry picking'.
Most gun related deaths in the United States are suicides.
And those people are not worth saving?
People who survive suicide attempts rarely end up dying via suicide. And most methods of suicide have a completion rate of 10% or less. Suicide attempts by guns are 90%+ effective.
What is better, no guns, or more guns?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I find it interesting that your comparing specifically to AR-15s and rifles instead of guns in general. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
Personally, I think ~45,000 people dying from guns in the US every year to be bad and would like us to do something about it. Since other countries don't have the same rate of firearm deaths, it should be possible to reduce the deaths here.