ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats are stupid

Sope Creek said:
No. Do you? It's rare, but it does happen. That's why grand juries are only for indictments, not convictions.

I answered your question, now you answer mine.

What's that got to do with the question I posed to CO? You know, about whether the politically motivated prosecutions constituting prosecutorial misconduct pertain when the prosecution is the result of a grand jury. Do you have insight into that?
Click to expand...
Do you think a criminal defendant has the right to demand that he can only be prosecuted by a prosecutor that has never had an extramarital affair?


I can see that a state bar association might investigate this as an ethical violation, but I don't see how an extra-marital affair prejudices Trump Co-Defendant Michael Roman in any manner at all.

After all, prosecutors and criminal defendants are inherently adversaries. So, Willis and Wade already have a conflict of interest with Roman.
 
Stuffshot said:
Do you think a criminal defendant has the right to demand that he can only be prosecuted by a prosecutor that has never had an extramarital affair?


I can see that a state bar association might investigate this as an ethical violation, but I don't see how an extra-marital affair prejudices Trump Co-Defendant Michael Roman in any manner at all.

After all, prosecutors and criminal defendants are inherently adversaries. So, Willis and Wade already have a conflict of interest with Roman.
Click to expand...
I don't. And if Trump joins the motion - Sadow is looking into it - I don't think that Trump will win either. They might have had an argument had the indictment not come from a grand jury. I don't think the prosecutorial misconduct pertains, because I don't think there's an opportunity for political prosecution where a grand jury issues a recommendation for an indictment.

But I dunno . . . that's one of the reasons I asked CO his opinion on whether or not prosecutorial misconduct results where an indictment comes from a grand jury.

I trust in John Floyd to make this case.
 
Sope Creek said:
No. Do you? It's rare, but it does happen. That's why grand juries are only for indictments, not convictions.

I answered your question, now you answer mine.

What's that got to do with the question I posed to CO? You know, about whether the politically motivated prosecutions constituting prosecutorial misconduct pertain when the prosecution is the result of a grand jury. Do you have insight into that?
Click to expand...
No, I don't, but I'm not a lawyer.

The question you asked implied the prosecution was proper and not political because it was the result of the grand jury, right? If I misunderstood, I'm sorry - please clarify.

My point was, virtually all cases that go before a Grand Jury end in a prosecution, so how does that make it non-political? (again, sorry if I misunderstood)
 
DANC said:
No, I don't, but I'm not a lawyer.

The question you asked implied the prosecution was proper and not political because it was the result of the grand jury, right? If I misunderstood, I'm sorry - please clarify.

My point was, virtually all cases that go before a Grand Jury end in a prosecution, so how does that make it non-political? (again, sorry if I misunderstood)
Click to expand...
To do your question justice it'll require a little history of the posts. CO posed an argument that Willis' amorous activity constituted prosecutorial misconduct. I asked the question whether or not his argument would be good if an intervening party - like a grand jury - had recommended the indictment. My argument for this proposition is in the post immediately above yours:

"I don't think the prosecutorial misconduct pertains, because I don't think there's an opportunity for political prosecution where a grand jury issues a recommendation for an indictment."

This of course is assuming that Trump and Roman can prove the basis for their motion, which to my knowledge hasn't been done.

You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the assumption that the motion is for Willis to disprove. If that is an incorrect statement, please correct it. I apologize for taking any liberty in your thinking, but it is an honest response.

In any case, that's not the way this works. It must be proved that Roman and Trump have been harmed by Willis' activity. I don't think they can for the reasons stated. Do you?

I'm still waiting for CO's response, if he has one. Do you have a response to my post?
 
Sope Creek said:
To do your question justice it'll require a little history of the posts. CO posed an argument that Willis' amorous activity constituted prosecutorial misconduct. I asked the question whether or not his argument would be good if an intervening party - like a grand jury - had recommended the indictment. My argument for this proposition is in the post immediately above yours:

"I don't think the prosecutorial misconduct pertains, because I don't think there's an opportunity for political prosecution where a grand jury issues a recommendation for an indictment."

This of course is assuming that Trump and Roman can prove the basis for their motion, which to my knowledge hasn't been done.

You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the assumption that the motion is for Willis to disprove. If that is an incorrect statement, please correct it. I apologize for taking any liberty in your thinking, but it is an honest response.

In any case, that's not the way this works. It must be proved that Roman and Trump have been harmed by Willis' activity. I don't think they can for the reasons stated. Do you?

I'm still waiting for CO's response, if he has one. Do you have a response to my post?
Click to expand...
Not really. I was replying to your post. It appears you have a disagreement with CoH which includes minutia of the law and I'm not really qualified, or interested, in that level of discussion.

But I do find it ironic that Trump is being prosecuted by a prosecutor who appears to be funneling money to her (inexperienced in prosecutions of this type) lover so they can go on expensive vacations together. Isn't the guy married, also?
 
DANC said:
Not really. I was replying to your post. It appears you have a disagreement with CoH which includes minutia of the law and I'm not really qualified, or interested, in that level of discussion.

But I do find it ironic that Trump is being prosecuted by a prosecutor who appears to be funneling money to her (inexperienced in prosecutions of this type) lover so they can go on expensive vacations together. Isn't the guy married, also?
Click to expand...
Beats me. I'm not as interested in Wade/Willis as you apparently are. Salaciousness does sell.

As far as your characterization of my "disagreement" with CO, I appreciate your honesty and humility.

I merely asked him a question based on facts that he should have known about, but apparently didn't. I still haven't received a response, though he's been on the board today. I'm sure he has better things to do.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: UncleMark
DANC said:
Not really. I was replying to your post. It appears you have a disagreement with CoH which includes minutia of the law and I'm not really qualified, or interested, in that level of discussion.

But I do find it ironic that Trump is being prosecuted by a prosecutor who appears to be funneling money to her (inexperienced in prosecutions of this type) lover so they can go on expensive vacations together. Isn't the guy married, also?
Click to expand...
Then, if Roman's prosecutor really is "inexperienced in prosecutions of this type", as you put it, why in the world would Roman be trying to disqualify him?

Seems Roman would have a better chance of acquittal if prosecuted by an inexperienced prosecutor. Roman could get him disqualified and then have to face a better, more experienced replacement.
 
when our legal system get's tied in knots over procedural issues, instead of main street issues. The shark has done jumped itself and is what most kitchen table bitches are about now. Our legal system is over educated wall street bartenders, not main street right and wrong.
More public hangings, less 20 year verbal sparing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Sope Creek said:
Would a grand jury indictment change your opinion about whether there's a politically motivated prosecution? Prosecutorial misconduct?

'cause that's what we have here.

www.politico.com

Read the Georgia grand jury's indictment of Trump

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis leveled the state-law charges Monday night after a two-year investigation.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...
No. GJ proceedings are a tool of the prosecution, not of the court.
 
Joe_Hoopsier said:
when our legal system get's tied in knots over procedural issues, instead of main street issues. The shark has done jumped itself and is what most kitchen table bitches are about now. Our legal system is over educated wall street bartenders, not main street right and wrong.
More public hangings, less 20 year verbal sparing.
Click to expand...
Um no.

We have had one of the most heterogeneous ethnic populations in the world for a long time. We have had more economic disparity between haves and have nots than most Western nations. Yet the US has historically been a very stable society.

I’d posit our legal system is one major reason why that is so. Procedural fairness might be complicated and it is costly but it is worth it.
 
BradStevens said:
Other than his use of the term “white rage,” I don’t understand what’s wrong with what he said.

The populist movements in this nation should be understood in some way by the military leaders for precisely the reasons he stated.
Click to expand...
I posted it for the numbers. To answer your question. I find his answer disappointing. It’s not difficult in my opinion to fix the issue; which means the General is either stupid (he’s not) or he has to give that word salad of an answer to keep his job.

My suggestions, stop using white rage or any similar demeaning terminology. If you wouldn’t say it about black people, don’t say it about white people. Also, end DEI and shut up about LGBTQ. Now, who do I send the bill too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
snarlcakes said:
I posted it for the numbers. To answer your question. I find his answer disappointing. It’s not difficult in my opinion to fix the issue; which means the General is either stupid (he’s not) or he has to give that word salad of an answer to keep his job.

My suggestions, stop using white rage or any similar demeaning terminology. If you wouldn’t say it about black people, don’t say it about white people. Also, end DEI and shut up about LGBTQ. Now, who do I send the bill too?
Click to expand...
I don’t know.

I think a lot of people are angry in our country right now. And some black people are angry about different things than some white people and vice versa. To say you want to understand why doesn’t mean you are saying their reasons for being angry are rational or stem from a healthy mindset.
 
BradStevens said:
I don’t know.

I think a lot of people are angry in our country right now. And some black people are angry about different things than some white people and vice versa. To say you want to understand why doesn’t mean you are saying their reasons for being angry are rational or stem from a healthy mindset.
Click to expand...
If he was being sincere. Don’t say white rage. Go hang out with some poor white people (I can invite you to my next family gathering?). It’s not difficult to understand. On second thought, are you just trying to get out of paying the bill?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
BradStevens said:
Other than his use of the term “white rage,” I don’t understand what’s wrong with what he said.

The populist movements in this nation should be understood in some way by the military leaders for precisely the reasons he stated.
Click to expand...
It's not the military's job to understand populist movements in this nation. That's not in their job description - i.e. Constitution - at all.

Their job is to defend the nation from foreign entities. Not to keep the populace under control. (addition) or to support certain political movements.
 
DANC said:
It's not the military's job to understand populist movements in this nation. That's not in their job description - i.e. Constitution - at all.

Their job is to defend the nation from foreign entities. Not to keep the populace under control.
Click to expand...
I agree. But to defend the nation, they need to understand the psychology of their soldiers. If a particular populist movement is popular, why would it hurt to try to understand why?

If they find that black people or white people or both that are applying for the military, by and large, hold a deep, seething resentment towards people in power because they feel they are being discriminated against all the time, it would be useful to know that, wouldn't it? To try to figure out where that comes from, and make sure they don't do stupid things to stoke that resentment within the military?
 
BradStevens said:
I agree. But to defend the nation, they need to understand the psychology of their soldiers. If a particular populist movement is popular, why would it hurt to try to understand why?

If they find that black people or white people or both that are applying for the military, by and large, hold a deep, seething resentment towards people in power because they feel they are being discriminated against all the time, it would be useful to know that, wouldn't it? To try to figure out where that comes from, and make sure they don't do stupid things to stoke that resentment within the military?
Click to expand...
I disagree. The military doesn't need to understand the psychology of their soldiers/sailors - the soldiers/sailors need to understand the psychology of the military.

Unlike the civilian world, the military is black and white. You are either following regulations or you're not. If you're a racist or plotting some coup against your military leadership because you harbor some deep-seated resentment, you will be found out and dealt with under the UCMJ - not a civilian court.

The military isn't some feel-good organization. They can't be. Trust me, even drill sergeants know enough psychology to weed out weaknesses and resentment - and then set that individual straight.

This whole idea of a woke military - and that's what we're turning into - is a big part of the reason they're having enlistment and retention problems. When generals feel their job is to psychoanalyze populist movements, instead of winning wars, we're screwed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snarlcakes and Joe_Hoopsier
DANC said:
I disagree. The military doesn't need to understand the psychology of their soldiers/sailors - the soldiers/sailors need to understand the psychology of the military.

Unlike the civilian world, the military is black and white. You are either following regulations or you're not. If you're a racist or plotting some coup against your military leadership because you harbor some deep-seated resentment, you will be found out and dealt with under the UCMJ - not a civilian court.

The military isn't some feel-good organization. They can't be. Trust me, even drill sergeants know enough psychology to weed out weaknesses and resentment - and then set that individual straight.

This whole idea of a woke military - and that's what we're turning into - is a big part of the reason they're having enlistment and retention problems. When generals feel their job is to psychoanalyze populist movements, instead of winning wars, we're screwed.
Click to expand...
I don't understand--you say (1) the military doesn't need to understand the psychology of their soldiers, but (2) that drill sergeants know enough psychology to weed out weaknesses and resentment and set that individual straight.

In my mind, (1) is obviously false. If you don't know how to motivate your soldiers or keep morale at a high level, you aren't going to be a very effective fighting force. Every major general/military leader in history has commented on the importance of morale--a psychological trait. Victor Davis Hanson thinks it is very important, too. Unless you think the same tactics to boost morale can be used in every society for every group, I think you have to admit that (1) is wrong.

None of this means you have to be "woke" by the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baller23Boogie, IU_Hickory, Spartans9312 and 1 other person
BradStevens said:
I don't understand--you say (1) the military doesn't need to understand the psychology of their soldiers, but (2) that drill sergeants know enough psychology to weed out weaknesses and resentment and set that individual straight.

In my mind, (1) is obviously false. If you don't know how to motivate your soldiers or keep morale at a high level, you aren't going to be a very effective fighting force. Every major general/military leader in history has commented on the importance of morale--a psychological trait. Victor Davis Hanson thinks it is very important, too. Unless you think the same tactics to boost morale can be used in every society for every group, I think you have to admit that (1) is wrong.

None of this means you have to be "woke" by the way.
Click to expand...
Morale is very important but has nothing to do with a populist movement.

I used drill sergeants as an example because they trained how to psychologically motivate troops - not cater to their political beliefs. That's at the lower level of the military on an individual basis. They're not evaluating anyone political leanings, unless those beliefs interfere with their military training and job.

I don't think we're going to agree on this, so I'll let you have the last word if you want. But morale is not dependent on the military's understanding of political or populist movements, imo. And if that's the thinking of today's military leadership, then we're screwed.

EDIT: Morale in the military is more dependent on the type of housing and food and pay than any understanding of political motivations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartans9312 and BradStevens
DANC said:
Morale is very important but has nothing to do with a populist movement.

I used drill sergeants as an example because they trained how to psychologically motivate troops - not cater to their political beliefs. That's at the lower level of the military on an individual basis. They're not evaluating anyone political leanings, unless those beliefs interfere with their military training and job.

I don't think we're going to agree on this, so I'll let you have the last word if you want. But morale is not dependent on the military's understanding of political or populist movements, imo. And if that's the thinking of today's military leadership, then we're screwed.

EDIT: Morale in the military is more dependent on the type of housing and food and pay than any understanding of political motivations.
Click to expand...
I don’t care about the last word. But I think we are advancing the discussion. I agree re political beliefs. And I think you’ve delineated the difference in our thinking here.

I think Milley is talking about something deeper than political beliefs, instead thinking the military needs to know the psychological factors leading people to believe what they believe and how they see the world. To me, what I outlined is important to understanding how to keep morale high and get different people working towards different goals.

Let’s put aside whether Milley is using my rationale for a second—do you agree with it? Follow up (that could go in the Ukraine thread): do you think the same tactics to keep morale high work on every fighting force (ie humans are mostly the same on those points) or do they differ by culture? That’s the deeper, more interesting point here, Milley be damned.

As an aside, if you read Ta Niesi Coates and Kendi, you’ll see not only their political philosophy and (in my mind, poor or illogical) reasoning for it. They also talk about why they feel and think the way they do based on their own life experiences —it’s autobiographical as much as it is polemical.
 
BradStevens said:
I don’t care about the last word. But I think we are advancing the discussion. I agree re political beliefs. And I think you’ve delineated the difference in our thinking here.

I think Milley is talking about something deeper than political beliefs, instead thinking the military needs to know the psychological factors leading people to believe what they believe and how they see the world. To me, what I outlined is important to understanding how to keep morale high and get different people working towards different goals.

Let’s put aside whether Milley is using my rationale for a second—do you agree with it? Follow up (that could go in the Ukraine thread): do you think the same tactics to keep morale high work on every fighting force (ie humans are mostly the same on those points) or do they differ by culture? That’s the deeper, more interesting point here, Milley be damned.

As an aside, if you read Ta Niesi Coates and Kendi, you’ll see not only their political philosophy and (in my mind, poor or illogical) reasoning for it. They also talk about why they feel and think the way they do based on their own life experiences —it’s autobiographical as much as it is polemical.
Click to expand...
Polemical. Three pointer grad school word
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC and BradStevens
BradStevens said:
I don’t care about the last word. But I think we are advancing the discussion. I agree re political beliefs. And I think you’ve delineated the difference in our thinking here.

I think Milley is talking about something deeper than political beliefs, instead thinking the military needs to know the psychological factors leading people to believe what they believe and how they see the world. To me, what I outlined is important to understanding how to keep morale high and get different people working towards different goals.

Let’s put aside whether Milley is using my rationale for a second—do you agree with it? Follow up (that could go in the Ukraine thread): do you think the same tactics to keep morale high work on every fighting force (ie humans are mostly the same on those points) or do they differ by culture? That’s the deeper, more interesting point here, Milley be damned.

As an aside, if you read Ta Niesi Coates and Kendi, you’ll see not only their political philosophy and (in my mind, poor or illogical) reasoning for it. They also talk about why they feel and think the way they do based on their own life experiences —it’s autobiographical as much as it is polemical.
Click to expand...
No, I don't agree with Milley that it's his business to understand or deal with 'white rage'. His business is to fight wars and not psychoanalyze the American public. He is not supposed to be political - at all. It's politicians' business to deal with any political group - not the military's responsibility.

First of all, I don't agree with his premise of 'white rage' or that the J6 crowd was there to overthrow the Constitution. That's just complete bullshit on his part and the J6 crowd was not comprised of those with supposed 'white rage'. They were composed of people who felt the 2020 election was rigged. Were the riots during the Summer of Love black rage? Why isn't he trying to understand that, since it killed far more people and did far more damage to the country?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff need to stay the hell out of politics. That's 3rd world shit, pardon my French. And it's disturbing to me that no one else seems to think it's a problem that they're involved in political matters.

I have a visceral dislike for high military brass that think only they are patriotic and know what's best for the country, and Milley personifies that. Thank God he's gone.
 
Bowlmania said:
www.defense.gov

DOD Addresses Recruiting Shortfall Challenges

Shortfalls in some of the military services' recruiting goals for fiscal year 2023 demonstrate the challenges that lie ahead for the all-volunteer force, the Defense Department's acting undersecretary
www.defense.gov
Click to expand...

Something is seriously off in the military right now

www.military.com

Army Reveals It Fired Female Commander in Troubled Brigade After Claims of Sexual Assaults on Male Soldiers

Col. Meghann Sullivan served as commander of the 5th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade, at the base in Washington state.
www.military.com www.military.com

200w.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: snarlcakes
JamieDimonsBalls said:
Something is seriously off in the military right now

www.military.com

Army Reveals It Fired Female Commander in Troubled Brigade After Claims of Sexual Assaults on Male Soldiers

Col. Meghann Sullivan served as commander of the 5th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade, at the base in Washington state.
www.military.com www.military.com

200w.gif
Click to expand...
Damn, not bad:

www.dailymail.co.uk

Army commander accused of forcefully kissing male soldiers FIRED

Col. Meghann Sullivan was under investigation last year after she allegedly kissed one man, grabbed another below the belt without consent and harassed others.
www.dailymail.co.uk
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
Bulk VanderHuge said:
Answer is in the "Barron Trump" thread. kc's post was worth a reply (an increasingly rare event in these parts), and as long as I broke the seal, I figured a couple of more posts would be a harmless waste of my time/talent.
Click to expand...
Check out the Dems sweep thread. I was hoping you’d post in there.

As for the board: be the change you want to see!
 
Bulk VanderHuge said:
Not really.

You are 10X the poster I am, and this place has deteriorated quicker than shit through a goose since you decided to come back. Not your fault.
Click to expand...
But I am doing well. 😝

Seriously, though, use the ignore feature. It’ll make your time more enjoyable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IU_Hickory

Trump won't rule out violence if he loses election

Replies
100
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
mcmurtry66
M
TheOriginalHappyGoat

50 points if you had Cuellar on your corruption bingo card.

Replies
13
Views
341
The Water Cooler
TomEric4756
T
TheOriginalHappyGoat

Third party candidates

Replies
42
Views
576
The Water Cooler
BradStevens
BradStevens
M

Barr - Biden unfit for president

Replies
167
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
dbmhoosier
dbmhoosier
Stuffshot

Nothing but the best people, Weisselberg edition

Replies
0
Views
118
The Water Cooler
Stuffshot
Stuffshot
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back