Bob Ness Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Was at the AOC/Sanders rally in Venice today. Must have been 10,000 people there. Little or no media. As much as people like Sanders, they really love AOC. Probably because she is what HRC was not. If it was possible Bernie should pick her as VP. Off that rally plus some of the polls, I think Bernie has a really good chance of winning. Especially since California moved up its primary. Where at? One of my favorite LA hangouts Cows End. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 Bob: It was on the beach at Wyndam Place.. People started getting there at ten, two hours before it started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 This depressing article was published at Lawfare last January but is trending now as the most popular of the week, for obvious reasons. Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case? https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Bob: It was on the beach at Wyndam Place.. People started getting there at ten, two hours before it started. Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Couteau Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 Video of the rally - what a great team they make: https://ktla.com/2019/12/21/bernie-sanders-rallies-in-venice-alongside-rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-drawing-thousands-of-supporters/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 23, 2019 Author Share Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) I saw The Report last night. I thought it was a mixed bag, but still worth seeing. From the film, which I understand is pretty accurate, Brennan was/is a pretty bad guy. PS More evidence of the pernicious fantasy of supply side economics. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/steve-chapman/ct-column-trump-tax-cut-2017-chapman-20191220-pp6eha6ktbhyxpwiagcrzuvqmm-story.html?fbclid=IwAR01xoAr-mZMvmPgtT-BcqDK6BluWGOxFBLwUjQuzPpcooatXpmT09o9duQ Edited December 23, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted December 26, 2019 Share Posted December 26, 2019 (edited) Ukraine Whistleblower’s Attorney Calls for Sen. Blackburn’s Resignation from Protection Caucus http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ukraine-whistleblowers-attorney-calls-for-sen-blackburns-resignation-from-protection-caucus/ar-BBYmNWi?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE07DHP From the article: Zaid, who has spent decades in Washington representing government employees against federal agencies, was specifically referencing comments Blackburn made last month regarding the whistleblower and Vindman. “Vindictive Vindman is the ‘whistleblower’s’ handler,” Blackburn tweeted just days after Vindman, the top Ukraine advisor on the National Security Council, publicly testified that he was so disturbed after hearing Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky that he immediately reported the call to the council’s top lawyer, John Eisenberg. Vindictive Vindman is the “whistleblower’s” handler. — Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) November 22, 2019 Blackburn was playing into the nonsensical conspiracy theory that Vindman — born in Ukraine before moving to the U.S. at age three and eventually receiving a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq — was not loyal to the United States. Republican House attorney Steve Castor was also criticized for spending a considerable amount of time questioning Vindman’s loyalty during his public testimony. Edited December 26, 2019 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 37 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said: Ukraine Whistleblower’s Attorney Calls for Sen. Blackburn’s Resignation from Protection Caucus http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ukraine-whistleblowers-attorney-calls-for-sen-blackburns-resignation-from-protection-caucus/ar-BBYmNWi?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE07DHP From the article: Zaid, who has spent decades in Washington representing government employees against federal agencies, was specifically referencing comments Blackburn made last month regarding the whistleblower and Vindman. “Vindictive Vindman is the ‘whistleblower’s’ handler,” Blackburn tweeted just days after Vindman, the top Ukraine advisor on the National Security Council, publicly testified that he was so disturbed after hearing Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky that he immediately reported the call to the council’s top lawyer, John Eisenberg. Vindictive Vindman is the “whistleblower’s” handler. — Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) November 22, 2019 Blackburn was playing into the nonsensical conspiracy theory that Vindman — born in Ukraine before moving to the U.S. at age three and eventually receiving a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq — was not loyal to the United States. Republican House attorney Steve Castor was also criticized for spending a considerable amount of time questioning Vindman’s loyalty during his public testimony. Well, what else would we expect from a Senator who co-sponsored the "Birther Bill," and staunchly opposes the theory of evolution, the international scientific consensus on climate change, the Affordable Care Act, LGBT rights, and net neutrality? 'Murica don't need to protect no stinkin' whistle blowers... 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said: Hazzah! We went full circle. Jim’s first post on this never ending thread originally suggested that Zaid is a Company lawyer with the mandate to make sure the CIAs narrative regarding the JFK Assassination is not crowded out by more logical suppositions. I’m pretty sure any subsequent assertions and narrative spinning on any other subject by a Company lawyer that has already shown a willingness to obfuscate and distort the facts surrounding the JFK Assassination instantly makes unreliable everything else the Company lawyer might assert on this JFK Assassination Forum. Aside from the above, Zaids fondness for being photographed with Disney Princesses and not having a daughter under the age of 10 (or any daughter for that matter, or kids at all, from what can be found) is just too “Bidenesque” to not consider Zaid says whatever he is told to say. That's a logical fallacy, Robert. The fact that Zaid was, apparently, complicit in covering up the Company's role in the JFK assassination does not imply that his defense of a CIA whistle blower involved in exposing Trump's Ukraine-gate extortion scam is part of a CIA cover up. Nor does it imply that the CIA is complicit in Trump's Ukrainian extortion scam. As an analogy, the fact that an attorney named John Smith once defended a murderer named Bob Jones does not imply that any future clients of John Smith are necessarily murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 Trump Retweets Article Which Names Alleged Whistleblower https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-retweets-article-which-names-alleged-whistleblower/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 9 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said: Really Niederhut, which logical fallacy would that be? I corrected the fallacy in your analogy, shown in bold italics. Now, it is logically consistent, though still not all that helpful. Consider your analogy in relativistic and probabilistic terms. You won’t get the same binary result using just logic, on the other hand, it is more applicable to the real world, even including the innate heuristic biases that lead to a still defensible conclusion. In a nutshell, it's the fallacy of over generalization-- drawing a conclusion that does not follow from your data. "John Smith once defended a murderer, therefore any client he defends must also be a murderer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 The Inside Story of Christopher Steele’s Trump Dossier In a new book, the founders of the firm that compiled it defend their work. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-inside-story-of-christopher-steeles-trump-dossier?fbclid=IwAR1VYdeDaNaPGS0OGq2HGgvdEwVN4VVdGshRQl7063TUP83lOP2DdyTX47I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 I’ve been reading this book. It’s strikes me as a lot more reliable information from people who know the most. Several posters on this thread have reiterated without basis in fact that the Steele Dossier was not only a Democratic Party Operation, it was also largely false, fake information. Repeating that falsehood doesn’t make it true. Trump is clearly compromised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 28, 2019 Author Share Posted December 28, 2019 But William, there was also with Zaid the Lockerbie shootdown. He was wrong about that also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now