ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

The_Reporter wrote:

"initially"

"On topics that included"

If there were nothing wrong going on, why would any of them lie to the FBI in the first place?

So it's nothing but for clickbait purposes they made it sound like there could be something, maybe.

Mollie is disappoint.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

innervation wrote:

Um, if it were accidental, it should still be involuntary manslaughter. That's why the charge of involuntary manslaughter exists. For this. Right here.

involuntary manslaughter is for when there's criminal negligence. If you find a wrapped up gun that's charged and while you unwrap it (without even knowing it's a gun) and a shot fire and kill someone, it's not criminal negligence because:

- you didn't know it was a gun
- you didn't load it
- you don't own it


I mean, you could really just stop at the first point but it's just to illustrate that you can't be held accountable for accidents like that.

Another example would be if your brakes suddenly stop working and you end up causing an accident implying the death of another person. If there was no prior sign(s) of a problem with brakes, you couldn't be condemned of involuntary manslaughter.

Oh. You're right. That would explain him not being prepared for the thing he doesn't know is a gun to go off. Then it went off two more times. And the guy testified that he was shooting at sea lions. Do go on though!

"

The_Reporter wrote:

I don't know about hacks, but they assisted. The contact continued because part of the deal was to remove sanctions. Russia still wants to collect. Without a doubt, there's something else too.

But the sanctions have increased? Trump must really be a master negotiator :o

"

The_Reporter wrote:

Under this administration, yes.

Do we need to bring up tape of Nancy "we need to pass Obamacare to see what's in it" Pelosi?

"

The_Reporter wrote:

If there were nothing wrong going on, why would any of them lie to the FBI in the first place?

THIS is an interesting question. To start, realize he's taking this plea deal not because of what he did with Russia, but because he lobbied for Turkey without registering as a foreign agent. He's pleading guilty to lying, because it will carry a less harsh sentance than what he would get for his illegal lobbying. So why lie about talking to Kislayak after the admin won the election, when it was perfectly legal to talk to him?

(btw, here's Obama surrogates talking to everyone, and the media praising them for it. http://archive.is/CFm0K)

Either he honestly misremembered some details, or he's covering up something big. But Flynn wasn't under investigation for Russian collusion - it was for the Turkey stuff, and for potentially trying to recover Clinton's deleted e-mails. So it doesn't make sense that he would go for some big lie there. If he did, the FBI would know about it, and he'd be under investigation for it. How do we know this?

BECAUSE THE FBI WAS SPYING ON HIM FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR VIS A VIS KISLAYAK. Who they got a FISA warrant to wire tap. Which is what picked up Flynn on tapes, which is how they know he ended up lying about his contact with the guy.

My guess is they grilled him on it hoping that he would slip up, knowing they had the FISA tapes in hand. Boom. Easy perjury, tons of leverage for other stuff. All totally illegal from the start given that everyone in the Obama admin knew that Kislayak wasn't a spy, and secondly, illegally unmasked Flynn's identity. Thanks Susan Rice!

"

deathflower wrote:

Who in their right mind would vote yes on legislation they don't know what the hell it is about.

Every legislator? That is, if the premise of your statement is that the act of legislation is of significant importance, and taking any action—affirmative or not—without understanding what is being acted upon constitutes negligence or a disregard for that importance. In which case, you just described the great political machine. Every legislator who votes does so mostly in ignorance of the consequences of their actions.

This isn’t anything new.

"

innervation wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

"

innervation wrote:

Um, if it were accidental, it should still be involuntary manslaughter. That's why the charge of involuntary manslaughter exists. For this. Right here.

involuntary manslaughter is for when there's criminal negligence. If you find a wrapped up gun that's charged and while you unwrap it (without even knowing it's a gun) and a shot fire and kill someone, it's not criminal negligence because:

- you didn't know it was a gun
- you didn't load it
- you don't own it


I mean, you could really just stop at the first point but it's just to illustrate that you can't be held accountable for accidents like that.

Another example would be if your brakes suddenly stop working and you end up causing an accident implying the death of another person. If there was no prior sign(s) of a problem with brakes, you couldn't be condemned of involuntary manslaughter.

Oh. You're right. That would explain him not being prepared for the thing he doesn't know is a gun to go off. Then it went off two more times. And the guy testified that he was shooting at sea lions. Do go on though!

I'll admit I didn't read the whole story as it was multiple pages and only squirmed through the first few paragraphs.

If he did admit to have been shooting at sea lions, I would consider it inappropriate use of the gun (unless the sea lions were presenting a real threat to his life, which I highly doubt is the case) and would indeed consider it manslaughter.

after reading the whole story from the page linked earlier in this thread, I don't see any mention about the guy shooting sea lions. Source?

The jurors in Kate Steinle murder case were probably salty liberals looking to acquit as some sorta petty vengeance over losing an election. It wouldn't surprise me. This is San Francisco we're talking about. The place isn't known for being a bastion of sanity. They would have probably voted to give the murder citizenship, if they could have.

Tax bill just passed the senate.