what's really going on in the USA?

[Deleted User]

A Lawless Government by Paul Craig Roberts

Source: https://paulcraigroberts.org/2019/01/30/a-lawless-government/

I remember when a suspect was regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. Today prosecutors convict their victims in the media in order to make an unbiased jury impossible and thereby coerce a plea bargain that saves the prosecutor from having to prove his case. In the United States law is no longer a shield of the people. Law is a weapon in the hands of prosecutors. (See Roberts & Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.)

Formerly, if a prosecutor staged an arrest for publicity purposes, as Mueller did by placing a CNN presstitute on the scene and sending a couple of dozen heavily armed men in a pre-dawn raid to arrest a well known political consultant for allegedly “lying to Congress” when the appropriate procedure is for Mueller to inform Stone’s lawyer to present his client for indictment, the judge would throw out the case on the grounds that the prosecutor’s unethical action had biased the juror pool and made a fair trial impossible. The judge might also have thrown out the case on the grounds of selective prosecution. James Clapper while serving as Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress under oath and suffered no consequences, and Hillary Clinton has clearly broken the law and lied about it.

Today judges permit unethical behavior by prosecutors that deprives defendants of a fair trial, because judges don’t want the bother of trials any more than prosecutors do. Consequently, according to official statistics 97% of federal criminal cases are settled by a defendent pleaing guilty to a charge negotiated by his attorney and a prosecutor. As the charge is a negotiated or made-up one, most people in prison are there for confessing to crimes that never occurred.

Prosecutors, now that they are no longer bound by constraints of legal integrity, often fabricate a case against a person in order to force the person to give false testimony against the prosecutor’s real target. This is what Mueller’s cases against Cohen, Manafort, and Roger Stone are. Trump is the target, not Cohen, Manafort, and Stone. In addition, prosecutors string out the investigation so long that they force the target to use up his net worth fighting off an indictment. Then when the indictment arrives, there is no money left for lawyers, which adds to the pressure to “cooperate.” If Trump were a fighting man, he would pardon Cohen, Manafort, and Stone, reimburse them out of the Justice (sic) Department’s budget for their legal expenses, and have Mueller arrested for sedition and plotting to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States. This would be hypocritical as Trump himself is plotting to overthrow the duly elected president of Venezuela.

Mueller is not an agent of law. He is the agent of the military/security complex and the Democratic Party who intend to do away with Trump, because Trump positioned himself between them and their agendas.

The preposterous charge against Trump is that he, in league with Russian President Vladimir Putin somehow through computer hacking and backdoor deals stole the presidential election from Hillary Clinton. This is the fabrication known as “Russiagate.” The creation of this fabrication involves far more crimes than those of which Trump, Cohen, Manafort, and Stone are accused. “Russiagate” rests on a fake “dossier” paid for by the Democrats and perhaps the FBI that was used to mislead the FISA court in order to obtain permission to spy on the Trump team. This is a felony for which the officials responsible are not being charged. The spying failed to turn up any real evidence, and neither has Muller’s “investigation.” The charges against Cohen, Manafort, and Stone are unrelated to the election and are likely false and used as threats for the purpose of eliciting false testimony against Trump in exchange for dropping the charges.

Mueller’s tactics in his effort to frame the President of the United States are more despicable than the tactics to which the Gestapo stooped. Even worse, they are the tactics commonly in use today by US attorneys, and this evil has spread into state and local prosecutions. That prosecutors routinely behave in a way that once would have caused them to be dismissed from office shows the collapse of law and prosecutorial integrity in the United States.

The American and British media are as accommodating in the frameups as the German media was with the Nazi government. The Guardian, once an honest voice for the British working class, is now a propaganda sheet for British intelligence just as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR are for the CIA and FBI. The US media has never been very good, but until the Clinton regime during which 90 percent of the media was concentrated in six corporate hands, there was more than one explanation.

Since Donald Trump won the Republican presidential nomination, the media has been allied with the military/security complex and the Democratic Party in an effort to deep-six Trump. As I expected would be the case, Trump had no idea how to staff a government that would have supported him against the Establishment. He has been blocked on every front from normalizing relations with Russia to establishing control over US borders to withdrawal from Syria. The latest line from the military/security complex and the presstitutes is that the US cannot withdraw its troops illegally occupying a rump section of Syria, because ISIS is resurgent in Syria and Iraq and will renew the war if US troops are withdrawn.

This is nonsense. As General Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said on television, it was a willful decision of the Obama regime to send ISIS to overthrow Assad once Russia and the UK Parliament blocked a US invasion. It is Russia and Syria who fought and defeated Washington’s proxy army known as ISIS. Washington is blocking Trump’s order to withdraw US troops, because Israel wants the US to renew the attack on Syria and to carry it into Iran. Israel and its American vassals must think that Russia is going to stand down and permit the destabilization of the Islamic world to proceed into the Russian Federation.

Once upon a time the media and the foreign policy community would have publicly examined these issues. Now the media reads out the script handed to them.

As for Roger Stone, the media’s instructions are to convict Stone in the public’s mind as a facilitator of the Trump/Putin theft of the US presidential election. The actual facts do not matter, and the facts will never emerge from the media or from Mueller’s “investigation.”

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang said:
A Lawless Government by Paul Craig Roberts

Source: https://paulcraigroberts.org/2019/01/30/a-lawless-government/

I remember when a suspect was regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. Today prosecutors convict their victims in the media in order to make an unbiased jury impossible and thereby coerce a plea bargain that saves the prosecutor from having to prove his case. In the United States law is no longer a shield of the people. Law is a weapon in the hands of prosecutors. (See Roberts & Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.)

I started a list of the false and misleading assertions in the article you presented in this thread's OP, Wolfgang, but gave up the project about five paragraphs in. Stripped of its rampant falsehoods, the article is nothing but a partisan political tirade merged with several baseless conspiracy theories.

With all due respect, I must express my surprise at your recurring and eager reception of fact-free fantasies such as these. You exhibit such care when engaging biblical texts, demanding of yourself and those who engage you a laudable level of diligence to the text's truth and resistance to its unfounded interpretation. Yet you embrace the demonstrably false rhetorical blather of people whose perspectives are clearly distorted by partisan political philosophy.

I welcome you to ANY political views you choose, Wolfgang! But I must tell you that I am regularly startled by your alliance with writers who produce such deeply flawed and error-filled analyses.

[Deleted User]

what some (or even many) sometimes just do not see, another has in open view ...
Example, for the matter of "innocent until proven guilty" principle ... of course, such is still what is true on paper, but unfortunately, is it also in practice?? Sure, politicians and other persons in official capacities say a lot of "right" things, only their deeds are not what they are talking about ...
By the way, the type of points the author raises in his article are not only seen in the USA, we here in Germany have our share in the same ...
What many of the simple folk observe and experience in their neighborhood and their villages and towns of course quite often doesn't agree with the official politics line or with what is ah so "politically correct" ... the simple truth of the matter is that "deeds" speak louder than "words", and the political correctness is nowadays often "loony tunes" and "stupidity"

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang said:
what some (or even many) sometimes just do not see, another has in open view ...
Example, for the matter of "innocent until proven guilty" principle ... of course, such is still what is true on paper, but unfortunately, is it also in practice?? Sure, politicians and other persons in official capacities say a lot of "right" things, only their deeds are not what they are talking about ...
By the way, the type of points the author raises in his article are not only seen in the USA, we here in Germany have our share in the same ...
What many of the simple folk observe and experience in their neighborhood and their villages and towns of course quite often doesn't agree with the official politics line or with what is ah so "politically correct" ... the simple truth of the matter is that "deeds" speak louder than "words", and the political correctness is nowadays often "loony tunes" and "stupidity"

My objections to the article you provided in this thread's OP have little if anything to do with political philosophy or personal observation; they have to do with matters of fact. While I celebrate your and the article's author's politics, whatever they are, I object strenuously to the deployment of demonstrable falsehoods in defense of those politics.

For example, the author's claim that special counsel Robert Mueller "(placed) a CNN presstitute on the scene and sending a couple of dozen heavily armed men in a pre-dawn raid" on the home of Roger Stone is false - or, to be as generous as possible, completely unfounded. What CNN says happened, and what rather obviously makes the most sense is the following:

• The day before the Stone arrest, multiple media outlets reported an unusual Thursday meeting of the Mueller grand jury.
• The previous time the grand jury met on a Thursday, an indictment came down the next day.
• The unusual Thursday session prompted analysts from several media outlets to wonder whether an indictment would soon drop.
• For weeks or months, Stone had publicly declared his belief that he would be indicted.
• Several recent grand jury witnesses had reported to media outlets that the Mueller team had asked them about Stone.
• In THAT context, CNN decided to stake out Stone's house on the Friday morning after the unusual Thursday grand jury session. In THAT context, CNN correctly anticipated a Friday indictment, in the same chronology as had occurred after the previous unusual Thursday grand jury session.

The article is filled with false or unfounded assertions of fact such as that one, Wolfgang. In my view, the conclusions and observations an author draws from false or unfounded assertions of fact aren't worth the time it takes to read them. Whatever you've seen in Germany, whatever is the "official politics line," and whatever you might consider "looney tunes" and "stupidity" simply doesn't matter if the premises underlying those observations are false or unfounded. The article you provided is filled with falsehoods, which in my view, renders its analysis moot.

Bottom line: I respect your and the author's political philosophy and point of view. I do not respect demonstrably false assertions of fact.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:
A Lawless Government by Paul Craig Roberts
I remember when a suspect was regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. Today prosecutors convict their victims in the media in order to make an unbiased jury impossible and thereby coerce a plea bargain that saves the prosecutor from having to prove his case. In the United States law is no longer a shield of the people. Law is a weapon in the hands of prosecutors. (See Roberts & Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.)

Do you remember the chants at the Republican Convention in 2016, "Lock her up" in reference to Hillary Clinton? Who convicted whom then? Paul Craig Roberts' article is left-opened, warmed over, maggot infested propaganda, rotten meat to Mr. Trump's base." In short, purifying animus political garbage. The miasmic political stench would sicken the most partisan of American or German people. It appears you have been intoxicated by Roberts' gathering and incubation of America's political waste. What Roberts stated in his article is not true in America and not good for the German people consumption.

Wolfgang, change your news source. You are too intelligent of a man to peddle Roberts' political bile as a cure to America's ills. CM

                          **************************

PS. Does this sound like I am defending America? CM

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
PS. Does this sound like I am defending America? CM

Not necessarily ...

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@Wolfgang said:
A Lawless Government by Paul Craig Roberts

Source: https://paulcraigroberts.org/2019/01/30/a-lawless-government/

I remember when a suspect was regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. Today prosecutors convict their victims in the media in order to make an unbiased jury impossible and thereby coerce a plea bargain that saves the prosecutor from having to prove his case. In the United States law is no longer a shield of the people. Law is a weapon in the hands of prosecutors. (See Roberts & Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.)

I started a list of the false and misleading assertions in the article you presented in this thread's OP, Wolfgang, but gave up the project about five paragraphs in. Stripped of its rampant falsehoods, the article is nothing but a partisan political tirade merged with several baseless conspiracy theories.

With all due respect, I must express my surprise at your recurring and eager reception of fact-free fantasies such as these. You exhibit such care when engaging biblical texts, demanding of yourself and those who engage you a laudable level of diligence to the text's truth and resistance to its unfounded interpretation. Yet you embrace the demonstrably false rhetorical blather of people whose perspectives are clearly distorted by partisan political philosophy.

I welcome you to ANY political views you choose, Wolfgang! But I must tell you that I am regularly startled by your alliance with writers who produce such deeply flawed and error-filled analyses.

Do you disagree that the method of arrest was unnecessary?

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:
Do you disagree that the method of arrest was unnecessary?

From what I've heard and read from former FBI agents, the approach used to arrest Roget Stone was completely appropriate and by-the-book. Why? Several factors:

• The agents simultaneously conducted a court-approved search warrant of Stone's residence. Had they notified him in advance or requested Stone's appearance through attorneys, they risked Stone's tampering with evidence.
• Stone had previously threatened to kill people (e.g. Randy Credico). Law enforcement personnel are required - not to mention well-advised - to take people who make such threats seriously.
• Stone is a well known public figure. The more personnel they had on hand for his arrest, the more equipped they were to handle any security issues that arose from said notoriety - good for Stone's safety as well as the agents'.
• It wasn't a "no knock" raid. The agents knocked and requested entrance, which Stone granted. Stone later reported that the agents had been "extraordinarily courteous" throughout the process.

From what I've seen and heard to-date, protection of potential evidence, law enforcement personnel, and Stone himself made the approach used to arrest Stone appropriate.

C Mc

@reformed said:

Do you disagree that the method of arrest was unnecessary?

The arrest was done properly! He should not have broken the law. Remember what you said about the people at the border?

What's the big cry over little-spilled milk. I have seen a worse arrest. Find a cause worthy of attention. Stone will be fine. CM

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:
Do you disagree that the method of arrest was unnecessary?

From what I've heard and read from former FBI agents, the approach used to arrest Roget Stone was completely appropriate and by-the-book. Why? Several factors:

• The agents simultaneously conducted a court-approved search warrant of Stone's residence. Had they notified him in advance or requested Stone's appearance through attorneys, they risked Stone's tampering with evidence.

Of course, this is bogus. If he was going to tamper with evidence, he would have done it months ago. It was no secret he was under investigation. Invalid point.

• Stone had previously threatened to kill people (e.g. Randy Credico). Law enforcement personnel are required - not to mention well-advised - to take people who make such threats seriously.

I recommend you watch 12 angry men. This is also an invalid argument.

• Stone is a well known public figure. The more personnel they had on hand for his arrest, the more equipped they were to handle any security issues that arose from said notoriety - good for Stone's safety as well as the agents'.

This is a ridiculous argument as well. That was even more reason to do it quietly and privately. And if this were a valid argument, they wouldn't have come with guns drawn and in his face. They would have had people available to secure the zone but not have guns in his face. Your argument is invalid.

• It wasn't a "no knock" raid. The agents knocked and requested entrance, which Stone granted. Stone later reported that the agents had been "extraordinarily courteous" throughout the process.

I have not heard Stone say that. I have heard him say guns in his face and excessive personnel and they frightened his hearing-impaired wife who was sleeping upstairs.

From what I've seen and heard to-date, protection of potential evidence, law enforcement personnel, and Stone himself made the approach used to arrest Stone appropriate.

The evidence is not a valid argument. Stone didn't make such an approach appropriate. And I have heard MANY FBI agents say this was NOT by the book and not appropriate.

reformed

@C_M_ said:

@reformed said:

Do you disagree that the method of arrest was unnecessary?

The arrest was done properly! He should not have broken the law. Remember what you said about the people at the border?

First, it has not been proven that he did break the law. What does this have to do with people at the border?

What's the big cry over little-spilled milk. I have seen a worse arrest. Find a cause worthy of attention. Stone will be fine. CM

You are an idiot.

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:

• The agents simultaneously conducted a court-approved search warrant of Stone's residence. Had they notified him in advance or requested Stone's appearance through attorneys, they risked Stone's tampering with evidence.

Of course, this is bogus. If he was going to tamper with evidence, he would have done it months ago. It was no secret he was under investigation. Invalid point.

So in your view, law enforcement should not bother to take all lawful means necessary to secure evidence in criminal cases where the possessors of that evidence have had "months" to destroy or otherwise tamper with it?

More broadly, your argument is with the Trump Justice Department - specifically the Trump FBI, led by its Trump-appointed director, Christopher Wray - not me.

• Stone had previously threatened to kill people (e.g. Randy Credico). Law enforcement personnel are required - not to mention well-advised - to take people who make such threats seriously.

I recommend you watch 12 angry men. This is also an invalid argument.

I accept that you believe it's invalid for law enforcement to take seriously the fact that a suspect they're about to arrest has threatened to kill people. Again your argument is not with me, however, but with law enforcement, which as a matter of policy and practice takes such threats very seriously.

• Stone is a well known public figure. The more personnel they had on hand for his arrest, the more equipped they were to handle any security issues that arose from said notoriety - good for Stone's safety as well as the agents'.

This is a ridiculous argument as well. That was even more reason to do it quietly and privately. And if this were a valid argument, they wouldn't have come with guns drawn and in his face. They would have had people available to secure the zone but not have guns in his face. Your argument is invalid.

I dislike repeating myself, but your argument is not with me, but with the Trump FBI.

• It wasn't a "no knock" raid. The agents knocked and requested entrance, which Stone granted. Stone later reported that the agents had been "extraordinarily courteous" throughout the process.

I have not heard Stone say that. I have heard him say guns in his face and excessive personnel and they frightened his hearing-impaired wife who was sleeping upstairs.

Stone is both quoted in print and in a video clip in this Foxnews article. The statement from Stone appears at about the 1:32 mark of the embedded video.

The evidence is not a valid argument. Stone didn't make such an approach appropriate. And I have heard MANY FBI agents say this was NOT by the book and not appropriate.

Your argument is not with me; it's with the Trump FBI, led by its Trump-appointed director, Christopher Wray.

C Mc

@reformed said:

@C_M_ said:

@reformed said:

Do you disagree that the method of arrest was unnecessary?

The arrest was done properly! He should not have broken the law. Remember what you said about the people at the border?

First, it has not been proven that he did break the law. What does this have to do with people at the border?

What's the big cry over little-spilled milk. I have seen a worse arrest. Find a cause worthy of attention. Stone will be fine. CM

You are an idiot.

Old habits are hard to break. You, Reformed, have fallen off the wagon of maturity and proper exchanging into the mud of name-calling. How sad! Are you really this way or name-call to get a little attention? I find it hard to believe an adult (assuming that you are one) could be so undisciplined.

PS. It's not beyond me to understand, in implementing change, one should expect setbacks. Providing you intend to change, is this one of them? Did you have a hard day, today, Reformed?

I long for the day you would get the victory. CM

C Mc

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said: The evidence is not a valid argument. Stone didn't make such an approach appropriate. And I have heard MANY FBI agents say this was NOT by the book and not appropriate.

Your argument is not with me; it's with the Trump FBI, led by its Trump-appointed director, Christopher Wray.

Bill,
Your patience, points, and politeness are crystal clear, on the matter mentioned above. Thank you. However, I am reminded of an old saying I heard growing up: "You can reason with a mule, but not with a 'fool'". I am not calling anyone such, just sharing a recall. CM

[Deleted User]

@Bill_Coley said:
Bottom line: I respect your and the author's political philosophy and point of view. I do not respect demonstrably false assertions of fact.

Some people look at all kinds of "details" of a tree and totally miss noticing that they are in a forest ....

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang said:

@Bill_Coley said:
Bottom line: I respect your and the author's political philosophy and point of view. I do not respect demonstrably false assertions of fact.

Some people look at all kinds of "details" of a tree and totally miss noticing that they are in a forest ....

With all due respect, Wolfgang, I translate your response to my previous post as follows: You are unable to dispute the central assertion that I made: that the article you provided in this thread's OP is filled with false and misleading assertions of fact. Our disagreement in this matter, then, resolves to the issue of the value of facts (non-debatable truths).

From our respective posts, in my view, it seems clear that I place a higher value than you do on the role of facts as the basis of the arguments we make. In your view, facts are like trees that distract our attention from the forests we inhabit. In my view, facts give meaning, order, and value to the trees AND to the forests those trees construct.

Once again I must express my surprise about your attitude here, especially given the care and precision with which you engage biblical texts. I have yet to read one of your textual analyses that in any way dismissed the factual realities of a verse or passage as distractions from the meaning of the only-partially related whole. In fact, it seems to me that you're always willing to call others on the imprecision of their work with verses. The basis of your disputes with their takes is usually that you don't believe they are reading the plain meaning of the written word.

That is, you seem determined to call us to careful, fact-based engagements with the Bible, but you're apparently not concerned when the partisan politicos whose columns you share with us veer recklessly far from the truth in defense of their propositions. With due respect, I don't get it, Wolfgang.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

• The agents simultaneously conducted a court-approved search warrant of Stone's residence. Had they notified him in advance or requested Stone's appearance through attorneys, they risked Stone's tampering with evidence.

Of course, this is bogus. If he was going to tamper with evidence, he would have done it months ago. It was no secret he was under investigation. Invalid point.

So in your view, law enforcement should not bother to take all lawful means necessary to secure evidence in criminal cases where the possessors of that evidence have had "months" to destroy or otherwise tamper with it?

More broadly, your argument is with the Trump Justice Department - specifically the Trump FBI, led by its Trump-appointed director, Christopher Wray - not me.

• Stone had previously threatened to kill people (e.g. Randy Credico). Law enforcement personnel are required - not to mention well-advised - to take people who make such threats seriously.

I recommend you watch 12 angry men. This is also an invalid argument.

I accept that you believe it's invalid for law enforcement to take seriously the fact that a suspect they're about to arrest has threatened to kill people. Again your argument is not with me, however, but with law enforcement, which as a matter of policy and practice takes such threats very seriously.

• Stone is a well known public figure. The more personnel they had on hand for his arrest, the more equipped they were to handle any security issues that arose from said notoriety - good for Stone's safety as well as the agents'.

This is a ridiculous argument as well. That was even more reason to do it quietly and privately. And if this were a valid argument, they wouldn't have come with guns drawn and in his face. They would have had people available to secure the zone but not have guns in his face. Your argument is invalid.

I dislike repeating myself, but your argument is not with me, but with the Trump FBI.

• It wasn't a "no knock" raid. The agents knocked and requested entrance, which Stone granted. Stone later reported that the agents had been "extraordinarily courteous" throughout the process.

I have not heard Stone say that. I have heard him say guns in his face and excessive personnel and they frightened his hearing-impaired wife who was sleeping upstairs.

Stone is both quoted in print and in a video clip in this Foxnews article. The statement from Stone appears at about the 1:32 mark of the embedded video.

The evidence is not a valid argument. Stone didn't make such an approach appropriate. And I have heard MANY FBI agents say this was NOT by the book and not appropriate.

Your argument is not with me; it's with the Trump FBI, led by its Trump-appointed director, Christopher Wray.

Actually it is not the Trump FBI but witch hunter, partisan, unethical Mueller

reformed

@C_M_ said:

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said: The evidence is not a valid argument. Stone didn't make such an approach appropriate. And I have heard MANY FBI agents say this was NOT by the book and not appropriate.

Your argument is not with me; it's with the Trump FBI, led by its Trump-appointed director, Christopher Wray.

Bill,
Your patience, points, and politeness are crystal clear, on the matter mentioned above. Thank you. However, I am reminded of an old saying I heard growing up: "You can reason with a mule, but not with a 'fool'". I am not calling anyone such, just sharing a recall. CM

If you aren't calling anyone such why did you post it. Good grief.

That being said, his points are all invalid.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@Wolfgang said:

@Bill_Coley said:
Bottom line: I respect your and the author's political philosophy and point of view. I do not respect demonstrably false assertions of fact.

Some people look at all kinds of "details" of a tree and totally miss noticing that they are in a forest ....

With all due respect, Wolfgang, I translate your response to my previous post as follows: You are unable to dispute the central assertion that I made: that the article you provided in this thread's OP is filled with false and misleading assertions of fact. Our disagreement in this matter, then, resolves to the issue of the value of facts (non-debatable truths).

From our respective posts, in my view, it seems clear that I place a higher value than you do on the role of facts as the basis of the arguments we make. In your view, facts are like trees that distract our attention from the forests we inhabit. In my view, facts give meaning, order, and value to the trees AND to the forests those trees construct.

Once again I must express my surprise about your attitude here, especially given the care and precision with which you engage biblical texts. I have yet to read one of your textual analyses that in any way dismissed the factual realities of a verse or passage as distractions from the meaning of the only-partially related whole. In fact, it seems to me that you're always willing to call others on the imprecision of their work with verses. The basis of your disputes with their takes is usually that you don't believe they are reading the plain meaning of the written word.

That is, you seem determined to call us to careful, fact-based engagements with the Bible, but you're apparently not concerned when the partisan politicos whose columns you share with us veer recklessly far from the truth in defense of their propositions. With due respect, I don't get it, Wolfgang.

Bill you have proven over the years don't know what facts really are. You are interested in being a partisan hack only. You aren't interested in truth.

C Mc

@reformed said:

@C_M_ said:

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said: The evidence is not a valid argument. Stone didn't make such an approach appropriate. And I have heard MANY FBI agents say this was NOT by the book and not appropriate.

Your argument is not with me; it's with the Trump FBI, led by its Trump-appointed director, Christopher Wray.

Bill,
Your patience, points, and politeness are crystal clear, on the matter mentioned above. Thank you. However, I am reminded of an old saying I heard growing up: "You can reason with a mule, but not with a 'fool'". I am not calling anyone such, just sharing a recall. CM

If you aren't calling anyone such why did you post it. Good grief.

That being said, his points are all invalid.

Reformed,
I think you responded to the wrong post. This was for Bill. Of course, your not restricted from doing so...

The post I'm waiting for you to respond to is this:

@C_M_ said:

@reformed said:

@C_M_ said:

@reformed said:

Do you disagree that the method of arrest was unnecessary?

The arrest was done properly! He should not have broken the law. Remember what you said about the people at the border?

First, it has not been proven that he did break the law. What does this have to do with people at the border?

What's the big cry over little-spilled milk. I have seen a worse arrest. Find a cause worthy of attention. Stone will be fine. CM

You are an idiot.

Old habits are hard to break. You, Reformed, have fallen off the wagon of maturity and proper exchanging into the mud of name-calling. How sad! Are you really this way or name-call to get a little attention? I find it hard to believe an adult (assuming that you are one) could be so undisciplined.

PS. It's not beyond me to understand, in implementing change, one should expect setbacks. Providing you intend to change, is this one of them? Did you have a hard day, today, Reformed?

I long for the day you would get the victory. CM

We all miss posts from time to time to time. CM

[Deleted User]

Various responses to the original post simply display a partisan perspective rather typical for many USA Folks I have met over the years ... for example, busy with Democrat vs Republican (no matter what an issue may be about), very own nation supportive, usually called "patriotic" (no matter what an issue is about, "we" are always the good guys, others are always the bad dudes), etc ....

What about "facts"? which facts, the directing manipulated facts and/or plain fake "facts" of a certain "point" while not considering what is happening in the bigger scenario? I suppose some like "deals" between a prosecutors and defense attorneys ... not realizing that they actually agree to injustice in favor of maintaining a proper system of justice ?

While I certainly have my questions on certain points raised by P.C. Roberts in his articles, I would nevertheless regard him to be a (mostly unheard) "voice in a wilderness" that is simply thrown into the "conspiracy theorist" corner ...

[Deleted User]

a bit of a longer article on current affairs involving the USA and its political powers

Trump’s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember U.S. Dollar Hegemony
by M. Hudson

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang said:
Various responses to the original post simply display a partisan perspective rather typical for many USA Folks I have met over the years ...

No. My response to the original post simply displayed a concern for facts, for non-debatable, objective truth. What your responses to my posts have NOT displayed, Wolfgang, is any willingness to engage in a discussion of the central issue I raised: Is Roberts' article filled with false and misleading assertions of fact? Notice: I made NO claims about the partisan political views Roberts expresses in his article. I contended SOLELY with the factual basis of his argument.

...for example, busy with Democrat vs Republican (no matter what an issue may be about), very own nation supportive, usually called "patriotic" (no matter what an issue is about, "we" are always the good guys, others are always the bad dudes), etc ....

No. My responses in this thread have had nothing to do with patriotism, Republicans and Democrats, or "good" and "bad" guys. My responses have focused solely on the factual basis of Roberts' argument - an arena, to my disappointment, in which you have yet to join me.

What about "facts"? which facts, the directing manipulated facts and/or plain fake "facts" of a certain "point" while not considering what is happening in the bigger scenario?

I don't understand the meaning or consequence of this claim. With which specific assertions of fact - objective, non-debatable truth - are you taking issue? In what way(s) are you claiming those specific assertions of fact are not true?

I suppose some like "deals" between a prosecutors and defense attorneys ... not realizing that they actually agree to injustice in favor of maintaining a proper system of justice ?

This seems to present your personal judicial philosophy, to which you are of course welcome. But it does not advance the discussion I seek regarding the factual basis of Roberts' article.

While I certainly have my questions on certain points raised by P.C. Roberts in his articles, I would nevertheless regard him to be a (mostly unheard) "voice in a wilderness" that is simply thrown into the "conspiracy theorist" corner ...

Please offer an example or two of the "questions on certain points" you have about Roberts' article. I assume you're referring to the truthfulness of some of his assertions of fact, but I won't know until you cite an example. Then the question becomes, Wolfgang, how many false assertions of fact does a writer have to employ to support his or her arguments before you'll question the quality of that writer's arguments?

C Mc

@Bill_Coley said:

@Wolfgang said:
While I certainly have my questions on certain points raised by P.C. Roberts in his articles, I would nevertheless regard him to be a (mostly unheard) "voice in a wilderness" that is simply thrown into the "conspiracy theorist" corner ...

Please offer an example or two of the "questions on certain points" you have about Roberts' article. I assume you're referring to the truthfulness of some of his assertions of fact, but I won't know until you cite an example. Then the question becomes, Wolfgang, how many false assertions of fact does a writer have to employ to support his or her arguments before you'll question the quality of that writer's arguments?

Wolfgang,
To cut through the chase, P. C. Roberts is "a (mostly unheard) "voice in a wilderness' " because he a has nothing of real value and limited in truthfulness to say. Stop, trying and encouraging people to deep through mounds of political sewage for a drop of uncontaminated water.

Stop promoting this flawed commentator and his works. Wolfgang, you're intelligent enough to write your own commentary when you get the American facts straights. Better yet, share commentary on Germany. Who knows, you may find a following, even here in CD. You're your greatest spokesperson for your views on America, you can defend them and not Roberts'. CM

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:

Bill you have proven over the years don't know what facts really are. You are interested in being a partisan hack only. You aren't interested in truth.

And yet again, reformed, you display your allegiance to the motto of the forensically lazy, unprepared, and/or unable: If you can't beat the message, beat the messenger.

Let's engage in an exercise. Earlier in this thread, I included in one of my posts five assertions of fact as premises for my conclusion that the FBI's recent arrest of Roger Stone was appropriate and by the book. In your reply to those five assertions of fact, you labeled some of them "invalid" "arguments," but not once did you contest the truthfulness of the underlying assertion of fact. As proof of your claim that I am not "interested in truth," please prove that any of those five assertions of fact was false. For your convenience, here they are:

• The day before the Stone arrest, multiple media outlets reported an unusual Thursday meeting of the Mueller grand jury.
• The previous time the grand jury met on a Thursday, an indictment came down the next day.
• The unusual Thursday session prompted analysts from several media outlets to wonder whether an indictment would soon drop.
• For weeks or months, Stone had publicly declared his belief that he would be indicted.
• Several recent grand jury witnesses had reported to media outlets that the Mueller team had asked them about Stone.

[Deleted User]

A Passionate Attachment
Deferring to Israel is "what we are"

Have a look and a read here

unz.com/pgiraldi/a-passionate-attachment/

[Deleted User]

@Bill_Coley said:

• The day before the Stone arrest, multiple media outlets reported an unusual Thursday meeting of the Mueller grand jury.
• The previous time the grand jury met on a Thursday, an indictment came down the next day.
• The unusual Thursday session prompted analysts from several media outlets to wonder whether an indictment would soon drop.
• For weeks or months, Stone had publicly declared his belief that he would be indicted.
• Several recent grand jury witnesses had reported to media outlets that the Mueller team had asked them about Stone.

Could there be more to the story than what the C(IA)N(ews)N(etwork) claims ?
A draft copy of the indictment against Trump adviser Roger Stone may have been deliberately leaked by the chief prosecutor to CNN, tipping them off to the FBI raid on the “dirty trickster’s” home last week, Stone’s lawyer says.
Some info from Mr. Stone's lawyer:
Pointing to the lack of court filing markings on the indictment draft, as well as metadata that includes the initials of chief special counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, Stone lawyer Grant Smith urged Republican leaders to investigate how CNN ended up with the critical file when the indictments were supposed to remain sealed until after Stone was taken into custody.

What about this information on a different opinion?
Fox host Tucker Carlson offered his take on CNN filming a surprise FBI raid on Roger Stone’s house, saying the channel has turned into the “PR arm” of Robert Mueller, “the single most powerful” – and unelected – man in the US.

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang said:
Could there be more to the story than what the C(IA)N(ews)N(etwork) claims ?
A draft copy of the indictment against Trump adviser Roger Stone may have been deliberately leaked by the chief prosecutor to CNN, tipping them off to the FBI raid on the “dirty trickster’s” home last week, Stone’s lawyer says.

I find it interesting that you chose not to provide a link to support the assertions of your post, Wolfgang. The only place I found the italicized text in your post was the Russia-backed media outlet RT.com, which in turn linked to a site called thegatewaypundit.com.

The small feeding frenzy created by the 'pundit's" "exclusive" is limited in size to the fringe elements of the political right, including pro-Russia outlets such as RT.com. That NO ONE other than conspiracy theorists and fringe members have run with this alleged story is telling, but I will address one aspect of their "reporting" anyway.

The theorists suggest that the metadata of the indictment copy obtained by CNN was created BEFORE Stone's arrest. In response to the fruits of their junior detective work, the theorists contend CNN must have received an advance copy of the indictment, secretly from the special counsel's office! Two problems with the theorists'... theory:

• Because the document CNN was created before Stone's arrest does NOT mean the document was sent before Stone's arrest. All documents are created in advance of their distribution, and many times, a document's creation occurs hours, days, perhaps even weeks before its distribution.
• Included ingatewaypundit.com "exclusive" is a note from Ivan Pentchoukov, a reporter for the Epoch Times who in a tweet quoted one of Stone's attorneys: "Smith: 'I should note that CNN has stated that the copy they forwarded me was sent to them by the Special Counsel’s Office as a press release, but not before the arrest of our client.'"

What about this information on a different opinion?
Fox host Tucker Carlson offered his take on CNN filming a surprise FBI raid on Roger Stone’s house, saying the channel has turned into the “PR arm” of Robert Mueller, “the single most powerful” – and unelected – man in the US.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News doesn't like the Mueller investigation?!! I am shocked!! What ELSE will they allege? That the force of gravity on earth makes things fall down?!

---

It's likely clear, Wolfgang, but I am not at all impressed by the "reporting" of the sources you quoted in your post.

But your post also quoted my five assertions of fact related to the Stone indictment, none of which had to do with CNN or its obtaining a copy of the Stone indictment. Do you contend that ANY of those five assertions of fact is untrue? If so, which one(s) and for what reason(s)?

C Mc

R. Stone is not God. No moral law was broken. Nothing was done wrong. Stone got arrested big deal. He will get his days in court. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The "trickster" got some of his own medicine. Boo!

Thanks, Bill for an attempt to explain to those who will not see. Really, how can one explain nonsense? America has bigger problems than Stone's arrest. You have children who were taken away from their parents and will never see them again. Where is the justice in this?

Show some real compassion for a real situation, the children! CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:
R. Stone is not God. No moral law was broken. Nothing was done wrong. Stone got arrested big deal. He will get his days in court. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The "trickster" got some of his own medicine. Boo!

Thanks, Bill for an attempt to explain to those who will not see. Really, how can one explain nonsense? America has bigger problems than Stone's arrest. You have children who were taken away from their parents and will never see them again. Where is the justice in this?

Show some real compassion for a real situation, the children! CM

Why do you have so much faith in Bill? He is wrong on most things.

Bill_Coley

> @reformed said:

> Why do you have so much faith in Bill? He is wrong on most things.

Don't just say it, reformed; prove it.

Earlier in this thread you alleged, of course without proof, that I don't know "what facts really are," and that I am "not interested in truth." In response, I invited you to support your claim by showing that any of the five assertions of fact I used to support my view of the Roger Stone arrest was untrue. So far, you have not done so, I'm guessing because none of the assertions is false.

One line dismissals of other posters make for snappy posts, reformed, but sadly, they don't make for constructive or accurate ones.