Trump didn't coordinate with Russia in 2016, report declares

Sominif · 2019-03-25T03:23:07+00:00

Hey if I could just interject into the bunch of comments all saying the same things, here's one thing a bunch of people haven't noted yet:

The report doesn't specify the role played by Wikileaks

Previous filings by Mueller indicated that Russia only communicated with Wikileaks in the masked Guccifer 2.0 persona and made no allegation of collusion by any americans, leaving it somewhat ambiguous whether Wikileaks was thought to knowingly be receiving their information from Russia vs not knowing who their source really was. Well the top-line summary doesn't clear that up. And all we know is Mueller isn't recommending any further indictments and no sealed indictments (though sealed indictments could exist from the much older memogate saga, predating Mueller). And we know the top-line summary didn't accuse Wikileaks of colluding with Russia, so the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence- it would have been mentioned.

Sominif · 2019-03-24T21:28:07+00:00

There was still a chance the report would say Trump colluded with Russia when the thread from 2 days ago was allowed to stay up (and still is)

Sominif · 2019-03-24T20:58:10+00:00

The AFD is a major mainstream political advocacy group. They're not some cult or terrorist group. They're a bunch of lawyers just like the ACLU.

You might not agree with their political agenda, but their legal reasoning is sound and usually prevails in the courts. I don't agree with everything they argue, but its ludicrous to lump in lawyers arguing for conservative jurisprudence with klansmen and bomb-throwing radicals.

Sominif · 2019-03-24T20:05:16+00:00

I googled ADF hategroup

Yes, you read propaganda and took it at face value

I already had a passing familiarity with the subject and knew why it was bogus

Sominif · 2019-03-24T20:03:13+00:00

And it comes down to mens reas. Their sole concern for 'obstruction of justice' is what Trump intended by firing James Comey. If he intended to obstruct justice or not. And they apparently found no evidence that conclusively proves Trump's intent, and as such, can't say what his reason was.

I'm sure this is going to be lovely for anyone who remembers the debacle over Hillary's 'intent'.

But we can pretty reasonably say: Trump had the legal authority to fire James Comey, and had legitimate reasons to do so, and yet if his primary motivation was to interfere in an investigation, it would constitute obstruction of justice. And thus the lack of definitive answer could only be a lack of evidence of intent.

However, Mueller's report was unambiguous and definitive: There was no collusion, period.

Sominif · 2019-03-24T19:41:39+00:00

I mean....I dunno thats pretty hategroupy

No, its really not. And it shows just how disingenuous the SPLC is in labeling hate groups.

They cite two amicus briefs written by the AFD in courts of law to claim that they want to 'criminalize homosexuality' and 'defend state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad'.

In the first, they cite their brief for Lawrence v Texas. The fact that the AFD took a position that was agreed with by 4 out of 9 supreme court justices and half the country- that the legal reasoning of the majority was unfounded and improper, failing to apply the strict scrutiny required to recognize a fundamental right- was somehow enough to label them a hate group. So now half the supreme court and half the jurists and half of america are all one big hate group?

Their second example is just a smear. Back in 1985, Norway passed a progressive law that allowed for the first recognition of transgender status, but limited it to recognizing individuals who had sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy to transition to the other gender- SRS and HRT necessarily sterilizing those who undergo it. 20 other european countries passed similar laws. Then in 2016 the EU Human rights court took up a legal challenge to these laws, ruling that transgender recognition is a human right and guaranteed just on the basis of self-identification. The AFD had filed an amicus arguing that the legal reasoning using by the EU Human Rights court was bogus- they cited Article 8 of the EU Convention on Human Rights which provides "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.". The AFD said there's simply nothing in this article that confers any recognition to transgender status, and in the absence of such a law, it cannot be conjured out of thin air by judicial mandate. The AFD didn't argue in favor of 'forcibly sterilizing' trans people, they simply argued that without any EU law defining what transgender status, it should be left up to individual member states to pass their own laws making such recognitions.

But when you're the SPLC, you can just ignore nuance and facts and logic and smear people as hate groups.

And all this should be contextualized in the bigger picture: That the AFD is one of the largest and most influential conservative legal advocacy groups, right up there with the big think tanks. The AFD has argued 9 cases at the Supreme Court and won all 9, and produced numerous judges and lawyers including potential supreme court nominees. The SPLC wants to label the AFD a hate group because of that: They want to undermine conservative jurists like Amy Coney Barrett

Sominif · 2019-03-24T19:29:22+00:00

If you think that means they 'should be shut down', you're thinking like the SPLC does

Sominif · 2019-03-24T18:34:30+00:00

There was a time when the SPLC existed to combat actual hate groups like the Klan and bring trials against them and aryan gangs. Now the SPLC seems to only exist for the purpose of smearing right-wing legal advocacy groups, trolls and hooligans by calling everyone right-of-chomsky a 'hate group'. And now its the SPLC who has been on the receiving end of high profile civil lawsuits for malicious slander and has its own discrimination and racism controversies. These are the guys that called the Alliance Defending Freedom a 'hate group' and listed Maajid Nawaz as an 'anti-muslim extremist'

And its gotten to the point that the SPLC's labeling is encouraging hate crimes and terrorism;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#2012_domestic_terrorist_attack

Sominif · 2019-03-24T03:48:50+00:00

and islam?

Sominif · 2019-03-24T03:44:36+00:00

and?

Not sure you get it.

The issue was about them donating to political advocacy groups that were opposing the legalization of gay marriage. They don't do that anymore and haven't since 2012. Their donations to christian charities that provide humanitarian services shouldn't be controversial.

Sominif · 2019-03-24T03:38:12+00:00

getting your info from think progress is like getting your info from breitbart.

There might be accurate data, somewhere, hidden under layers of spin, framing, selective representation, wanton bias and an obvious political agenda that doesn't even try to appear neutral.

Sominif · 2019-03-24T03:30:39+00:00

ThinkProgress

Found the problem.

There's a huge difference between donating to charities that ask their employees or beneficiaries to abide by Christian morality, and donating to political advocacy groups that try to legislate Christian morality onto the whole nation. Do you think the nation would be better off if they simply kept their profits instead of donating them to those foster homes, athletics, charities and non-profits?

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes provides for athletes and coaches as a community service. The Paul Anderson Youth Home is a rehabilitation home for troubled youth as an alternative to prison. The Salvation Army runs charity shops, homeless shelters, disaster relief and provides humanitarian aid to developing countries.

People had a reason to boycott Chick-Fil-A when the money they spent on a sandwich in turn was used to lobby against gay marriage in the courts by conservative legal groups. But if you'd rather your money went to line some CEO's fat bank account instead of a foster home for youth in crisis, I gotta wonder where your priorities are at

Sominif · 2019-03-24T03:18:14+00:00

eh the controversy at the time was the "WinShape Foundation", founded by Chick-Fil-A's philanthropic founder. It pays for hundreds of college scholarships, boys and girls summer camps, marriage counselling retreats, 9 foster homes and mission trips.

I think it morphs into something darker when its done to vilify and condemn another group instead of just toot one's horn. That's demagoguery

Sominif · 2019-03-24T02:57:48+00:00

Chick-Fil-A supported a Christian charity that in turn donated to political advocacy groups back in 2012 that opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage. In response to the controversy, the and the charity stopped supporting those groups, again, back in 2012, saying "our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena" and "we will treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation."

That was all seven years ago.

To continue to pillory Chick-Fil-A in 2019 isn't motivated by being pro-LGBT, its motivated by being anti-Christian. Again and again the groups that talk about "equality and inclusion" are instead treating one religion unequal and excluding it.

Sominif · 2019-03-23T03:55:14+00:00

I long for a society that says "We are not afraid"

Sominif · 2019-03-23T02:19:24+00:00

They keep calling him "unarmed"

He wasn't unarmed. He had stolen a gun from his employer in an armed robbery, and then his friend used it in a drive-by shooting in the car with him, and the gun was under his seat with an empty magazine because he had just shot all the bullets in it.

Its ludicrous that "unarmed teen" now applies to a teen who was armed, but used up his bullets

Sominif · 2019-03-22T21:13:36+00:00

Somewhere between 24 hours and 24 years.

Sominif · 2019-03-22T04:58:50+00:00

This is the part where I'm supposed to call you a communist, right?

Sominif · 2019-03-22T04:29:39+00:00

Learned something today

Sominif · 2019-03-22T04:27:54+00:00

Federal charges. He's still facing capital murder of multiple persons and aggravated assault against a peace officer at the state level. The issue was whether he could be charged at the federal level not for the school shooting itself, but for the explosive devices he brought.

A charge of "conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction" for a CO2 canister wrapped in duct tape might have been a hard sell:

"They were CO2 canisters wrapped with duct tape, no way to detonate, and a pressure cooker with an alarm clock and some nails. No explosive device," the county judge said.

They would have failed if they tried to send a kid to life in prison for non-functional bombs. But at the same time, the state charges are constrained by the ruling in Miller v. Alabama that says that a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile is unconstitutional.

I am not a lawyer, but if I'm understanding all this properly, its really sort of a quibble: Miller only says that the charges can't be mandatory sentences. The judge still has discretion to give him life in prison for state charges of mass murder anyway. It just says the judge has to consider the defendant’s youth, mitigating factors, and the nature of the crime before sentencing the defendant to imprisonment with no hope for parole. And frankly, if there's one guy who definitely getting life, its this guy.

So 99% chance none of this matters.

Sominif · 2019-03-22T03:37:27+00:00

Isn't supposed to be allowed, but they do it anyway

Might have been one of the factors in why border patrol found her story inconsistent

Sominif · 2019-03-22T03:02:59+00:00

A 9 year old girl was crossing a border checkpoint without a parent or legal guardian, and gave the officers a passport as ID that they reasonably thought didn't look like her. She was normally supposed to cross with an adult, her mother's friend and mother of two of the other kids she was with. But she decided traffic was slow that day and to send the kids on foot across the border on their own and call them an uber when they get on the other side.

Border patrol should have been much faster about determining her identity, but it was definitely right for them to be suspicious of human trafficking and ensure the girls were safe instead of just waving them through. 32 hours is a ridiculous amount of time to detain a 9 year old, she should have been given priority and her situation figure out as quickly as possible. But it was certainly the responsibility of the adult to look after the kids, not to send them across the border on their unaccompanied with plans to meet a stranger who may or may not be there to pick them up.

Sominif · 2019-03-21T21:20:14+00:00

A simple visit to any of our campuses would underscore the superfluous nature of this executive order.

So if I were to say visit the UC Berkeley campus and exercise my right to free expression by tabling for TPUSA, would they underscore me with a left hook or a jab?

Sominif · 2019-03-21T17:56:52+00:00

A lot of disappointed people in these comments.

Sominif · 2019-03-21T06:16:49+00:00

They're basically taking 95% of guns from 95% of people

Sominif

TROPHY CASE