-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
So far, at least nine (now ~40) (now ~160) (now hundreds) judges, including Trump appointees, have ruled against Trump orders
- Thread starter essentialsaltes
- Start date
Hans Blaster
Your turn, Atlanta!
- Mar 11, 2017
- 26,492
- 18,995
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 14,694
- 6,324
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Consider MKULTRA, it's a matter of public record, they just had a Congressional hearing this year. How many American citizens had their rights violated and were killed or injured for life? Helms and Gottlieb were not imprisoned for destroying so many records--the victims alive still had a right to know so they could be properly treated. That sent a message to the rest of the intelligence community--that you will not face consequences for keeping your mouth shut when your agency violated the law. The intelligence community went after the Czech defector who was to testify about the Soviet program of drugs, the Soviet program had a goal of making sure the victim didn't know they were drugged. In the 1990s Jan Sejna received death threats from inside the U.S. intelligence community or the few others who knew he was going to testify in an unannounced House hearing. Sejna had knowledge of the Soviet program with exactly the same goal as the U.S. program. Where were the Inspector Generals when Sejna was threatened? There has been ZERO accountabilty. So too they damage controlled on veterans exposed to the various agents like Agent Orange. The agents used before that in Southeast Asia, like Agent Green, were even worse. The government wanted to limit the medical costs so they even denied medical coverage to those on bases where they were photos of drums with the colored tape. If it had orange tape, for example, it was Agent Orange. The Inspector Generals have passed on that subject, the government argues you can't prove what was in the marked drums.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Under the Southern Cross I stand...
- Aug 19, 2018
- 25,942
- 18,050
- 73
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I'll note that you are using the present tense.
Yet something that ended a half century ago means that current IGs should be fired? I'm not following the logic.
Upvote
0
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 14,694
- 6,324
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
We hope. It takes a long time for scandals to be revealed, MKULTRA is a very well established and famous one That was one where high ranking intelligence officials were caught, that set a standard for the rest of the other agencies. They know they can commit crimes and have the protection of the agency, the Inspector generals essentially rubber stamp that kind of wrongdoing Also today agencies blatantly violate the Freedom of Information Act and Presidential orders to release documents:
I once called the National Archives about the violation of an order to release records and they said other releases took precedent. What was happening, as was reported in the media years later, agencies were withdrawing released records and reclassifying those records. No punishment. Sejna's life was threatened in the 1990s. The Agent Orange scandal still goes on today, there are still veterans dying and cases denied because the government covered up evidence. Perhaps the media will cover it in twenty more years when they are all dead. As to transparency, the withhold and often lie, it goes on today. I filed a FOIA for a redacted document that was shown on a television interview and they say they can't find it. I told them the guy had a copy of it in his hands and went through a number of pages, all they have to do is contact him if they lost it. It was involving a story that got a lot of media attention. They still won't come up with it. There is virtually no real oversight, not the Inspector General, and not Congress.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Under the Southern Cross I stand...
- Aug 19, 2018
- 25,942
- 18,050
- 73
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm sure that you won't be surprised that I'm not the slightest bit interested.
What I am interested in is why you think current IGs should be sacked. I'll be honest, telling us that, in your opinion, in a particular case umpteen years ago, one of them didn't do his job well enough is an utterly ridiculous reason for doing so. And I mean, completely bat guano crazy. And personal anecdotes are less than useless. So you can't actually mean that. There must be something the present IGs have done or are doing, or in fact not doing, that would prompt Trump to sack them.
So what is it?
Upvote
0
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 14,694
- 6,324
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
There's plenty of wrongdoing going on, I gave the example of Freedom of Information Act requests. The agencies are violating the law and the IGs have not taken action. It's not as nefarious sounding as some of the other stuff but it allows them to cover-up wrongdoing. Your evaluation of the situation in regard to Trump seems right on to me, but I don't know what it was in particular.
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2007
- 4,468
- 4,342
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Big law firms caved to Trump. Now he’s screwing them over.
Who knew that making a deal with Trump would turn out poorly?
www.dailykos.com
Last year, the American Bar Association sued the administration over Trump’s issuance of executive orders threatening to sanction big law firms who had committed the terrible misdeed of hiring or representing people Trump doesn’t like, which violated the First Amendment.
The administration tried to make it go away, but in April, a federal judge ruled that the lawsuit could move forward.
The ABA’s discovery requests, which the Trump administration has mightily tried to ignore, include requests for internal communications between former White House strategist Steve Bannon and Boris Epshteyn, one of Trump’s personal attorneys
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2007
- 4,468
- 4,342
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Trump had no idea suing the BBC would be so much work
www.dailykos.com
So, when Trump sued the BBC for $10 billion for defamation, alleging the BBC edited his speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, in a way that gave the false impression he was directly calling for violence, he seemed to think that was it, a done deal, give him all the money.
A couple of tiny problems there, just that Trump has to prove, in a defamation lawsuit, that the BBC acted with actual malice, showing that they knew their reporting was false or that they recklessly disregarded the truth.
There’s also the little matter of showing damages. You can’t just say “I was hurt—$10 billion, gimme,” which is what Trump seems to think happens here. Indeed, Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, didn’t even bother to file a timely response to the BBC’s motion to dismiss, which is kind of a big thing to miss. If that name seems familiar, it’s because Brito is also the attorney who a federal judge just referred to the Florida bar for disciplinary proceedings in the slush fund case for his role in that collusive sham.
Trump had no idea suing the BBC would be so much work
Poor President Donald Trump. He loves filing lawsuits. Why can’t he just sue the BBC for defamation, demand $10 billion and have them write him a check for $10 billion?
www.dailykos.com
So, when Trump sued the BBC for $10 billion for defamation, alleging the BBC edited his speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, in a way that gave the false impression he was directly calling for violence, he seemed to think that was it, a done deal, give him all the money.
A couple of tiny problems there, just that Trump has to prove, in a defamation lawsuit, that the BBC acted with actual malice, showing that they knew their reporting was false or that they recklessly disregarded the truth.
There’s also the little matter of showing damages. You can’t just say “I was hurt—$10 billion, gimme,” which is what Trump seems to think happens here. Indeed, Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, didn’t even bother to file a timely response to the BBC’s motion to dismiss, which is kind of a big thing to miss. If that name seems familiar, it’s because Brito is also the attorney who a federal judge just referred to the Florida bar for disciplinary proceedings in the slush fund case for his role in that collusive sham.
Upvote
0
DaisyDay
I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
- Jan 7, 2003
- 44,544
- 21,650
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
True, discovery (where the defendants get access to some necessary documents from the plaintiff) keeps biting him in the butt. He has enough lawyers on retainer that filing frivolous, malicious lawsuits just to harass people is fun for him and painful for them. Then he can simply dismiss or withdraw his own suit - no skin off his teeth, but the defendants incur legal expenses and the worry and anxiety of the situation.Trump had no idea suing the BBC would be so much work
Trump had no idea suing the BBC would be so much work
Poor President Donald Trump. He loves filing lawsuits. Why can’t he just sue the BBC for defamation, demand $10 billion and have them write him a check for $10 billion?
So, when Trump sued the BBC for $10 billion for defamation, alleging the BBC edited his speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, in a way that gave the false impression he was directly calling for violence, he seemed to think that was it, a done deal, give him all the money.
A couple of tiny problems there, just that Trump has to prove, in a defamation lawsuit, that the BBC acted with actual malice, showing that they knew their reporting was false or that they recklessly disregarded the truth.
There’s also the little matter of showing damages. You can’t just say “I was hurt—$10 billion, gimme,” which is what Trump seems to think happens here. Indeed, Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, didn’t even bother to file a timely response to the BBC’s motion to dismiss, which is kind of a big thing to miss. If that name seems familiar, it’s because Brito is also the attorney who a federal judge just referred to the Florida bar for disciplinary proceedings in the slush fund case for his role in that collusive sham.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
