By proof I mean a recording of him ordering it, or a written order. Not just one or two guys saying hey he told us to. because that would not be near the smoking gun people think it is. They wouldnt arrest him on that alone and it for sure would not convict him.
We know who ordered it and why. But proving it is another matter.
I am talking about the records being removed or destroyed or whatever. Not the fact that he was on the phone.
This Post Contains No Artificial Intelligence. It Contains No Human Intelligence Either.
Witnesses testifying that he ordered it is evidence. He has violated the Presidential Records Act repeatedly. And he is responsible for what all his subordinates do.
John Dean's testimony was enough to get Nixon, before the tapes came out. The missing logs are a crime themselves, using a nonsecured phone is a crime. Not producing the phone he used is a crime. He is a criminal, it just takes a prosecutor with the guts to indict him.
Harold Hill put a lot of mobsters behind bars with just his testimony.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
Im just saying how many "Smoking guns" have there been with Trump. And now we have these missing records and everyone is one the "This is it. This is the end of Trump." bandwagon. I have heard this song about 100 times in the last 5 or six years.
is this a big deal? Yes. Will Trump do a second of time for it? No. Will it hurt his standing with his cult? nope it will help it.
When it comes to Trump and the smoking gun I will buy into it when he is behind bars.
if I had a Nickle for every time a Dem has said "This is the smoking Gun it is the end of Trump." I would be so rich AOC would be trying to take 80% of my money in taxes.
Last edited by babyblob; 03-29-2022 at 02:59 PM.
This Post Contains No Artificial Intelligence. It Contains No Human Intelligence Either.
Evading phone records is shady conduct, but mishandling classified documents is undeniably a federal offense. This certainly happened at the end of Trump's presidency, since highly classified documents turned up in boxes of papers at his Florida residence. But it appears that this will be just another thing that he gets away with. (Had it happened to one of us, after an intense FBI investigation we almost certainly would be hauled into court.)
It needs to be investigated, it needs to be looked into and someone needs to be help responsible. But what in the history of the last 7 or so years makes anyone think and strongly believe that person will be Trump?
This Post Contains No Artificial Intelligence. It Contains No Human Intelligence Either.
It's an interesting argument that autistic people have a low tolerance for bullshit, and are more likely to recognize that they are trans. The links just point out the higher rates of autism among trans and gender-diverse people, and consider implications in terms of care, but not the reasons this may be.
I have no idea what the answer to this is, but it would be interesting to look at how the autistic population differs from the standard American population when it comes to objective measures involving peer pressure related tactics, or medical conditions involving self-regulation. Are they more or less likely to be victims of financial scams? Are they more consistent when it comes to any schedules for prescription drugs? What type of medical services are autistic LGBTQ adults asking for and not receiving?
My comments were about organizations making claims about individuals, so the CRT fight is mainly a different issue.
The argument itself is more about a trend than picking on an obscure educator or one really flawed board.
If you want to see obscure progressive teachers making some dumb announcements, the "Libs on Tik Tok" twitter has plenty of that. If some people go too far, that's not necessarily an indictment of the system.
Last month, several members of the San Francisco Board of Education lost recall elections, after deciding to spend energy during school closures renaming schools because Abraham Lincoln and Dianne Feinstein were beyond the pale.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/u...rd-recall.html
When it comes to curriculums, a major argument is that teachers will go beyond the curriculum to talk about things some parents will object to.
This is a situation where some people want to push two sides, but it gets messy because people on either side of the political aisle aren't in a hivemind. Their attitudes are going to be on a spectrum. Some parents will be overly sensitive in terms of their suggested restrictions on high schools.
Some fights also get conflated. Most of the arguments about how to handle gender and sexuality are distinct from any discussion on the influence of Critical Race Theory, which is more about a different sensitive issue.
I believe if an organization decides to make a statement about a person, the onus is on them to back up their claims.
Being succinct may be Public Relations 101, but that first class almost certainly doesn't touch on the question of how an organization should comment about a human being. I suspect the general suggestion would be to avoid those fights unless absolutely necessary.
I don't think I've been duped by one article, but I'm willing to change my mind, if someone can show me the comments by the writer that indicate such "a troubling hostility toward transgender critics and trans-allies" that a nomination for best memoir in a particular category should be rescinded.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
The Cover Contest Weekly Winners ThreadSo much winning!!
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
“It’s your party and you can cry if you want to.” - Captain Europe
There's zero reason to comment about the person herself as that just creates argument. A press release is a simple statement, not a commentary; it's meant to be short and declaratory in tone. You go in, make your statement and get out and that's exactly what they did. They observed actions that didn't meet their ideals so they declined to consider that author's work for an award. There is no reason to say more than that...and it's not on them to do so, and nor are they alone in keeping it short and sweet. You'll notice the Academy of Motion Pictures didn't go into details of what happened at the Oscars, thy simply said, " The Academy condemns the actions of Mr. Smith at last night's show.We have officially started a formal review around the incident and will explore further action and consequences in accordance with our Bylaws, Standards of Conduct and California law."
There's no context, no details, no he said-she said, just a concise statement of what their actions will be...and it was the same with the Lamda's statement.
That you want more for some reason, or think that their should be more doesn't mean that they should have included more or that they erred in not doing so as your wants fly in the face of the standard operating procedure of every publicist out there. I can post literally hundreds of more similarly worded releases if you really want...but I think you know how they are usually formatted, and you're just trying to deflect from the fact that the article you linked to didn't provide quotes of her comments.
And you were duped, that's not a subjective opinion it's just a flat fact.
That you didn't go looking for the comments yourself when they strangely weren't included in the article but believed the article's message any way is the evidence that you bought the narrative.
You just have to admit you were wrong here, you thought because it was in the Times it must have been trust worthy and didn't stop to think that it strangely didn't even try to even pretend to be objective and only reported one side of the issue.
It happens, we see something that agrees with our bias and just go with it...but this is a case where doing so just slapped you in the face. Own that, promise to do better in evaluating your news sources in the future and move on.
Last edited by thwhtGuardian; 03-29-2022 at 04:31 PM.
Looking for a friendly place to discuss comic books? Try The Classic Comics Forum!
So, to sum up:
- Russian forces are withdrawing from Kyiv to the East.
- A number of Russian officials reportedly left Moscow.
- Peskov recently said that they will not use nukes unless their own country is threatened, which translates from Russian as: We will likely use them.
I don't know, I am getting very, very afraid that they plan to send a nuke to Ukraine. I really hope I'm wrong.
Slava Ukraini!Truth and love must prevail over lies and hatred
This Post Contains No Artificial Intelligence. It Contains No Human Intelligence Either.
Besides conservatives trying to hide their agenda behind 'parent objections' is garbage anyway.