jakee

Before she'd read the documents detailing the scope of the investigation. After she'd read the special counsel's orders she agreed that it was entirely within the mandate that Mueller was given by the Trump administration. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why do you think it's OK for the President to be able to block any federal investigation into himself, his staff, his business associates or his friends? It's like you want to live in a banana republic. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

For what? What would Rosenstein go down for? What law has he broken? Be specific, please. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why did Trump appoint so many ignorant people to the Justice department? Why couldn't he find even one person capable of understanding special counsel law? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So why is Trump's administration ignoring the law? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You said the investigation was illegal. If you don't know why it's illegal, why are you saying it? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why doesn't Trump's administration follow the law? What law do you think he is not following? (This should be interesting) The one that makes the investigation (being carried out by his administration) illegal. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why doesn't Trump's administration follow the law? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

A joke made, in all aspects, by Trump and his administration. I've never seen you so willing to criticise the Republicans. It's good progress

This is confusing. Your problem with the trial is that it was based on 'everyone knows' XYX. But you basis for having that problem is that you feel 'everyone knows' the juror's tone meant he was saying everyone knows XYZ, not that he actually said it? The link you posted earlier doesn't work in the uk at the moment, could you just paste the bit you're talking about? Tbh the Wikipedia article really highlights the differences from Arbuckle and the current high profile cases. Arbuckle was accused by one woman, and by business associates of the deceased who were plainly after money. The story was seized by a yellow press, tabloid mogul who printed numerous unsubstantiated, unsourced accusations and lurid tales whose evolution could be traced as they grew greater in the retelling. Cosby was accused by numerous different women over long, long periods of time. Women unconnected with each other whose accusations were on the record before his downfall began. Weinstein also has been accused by numerous different unconnected women, and directly through their own public statements, not amplified by a sensationalist media. Roy Moore was accused by numerous different women, and his history was reported on by serious, ethical news outlets - ones whose commitment to fact checking led them to uncover and turn the tables on fraudsters who tried to discredit them by feeding spurious stories in the hope they'd be printed. Donald Trump has been accused by numerous different, unconnected women, multiple times over several decades as well as after he sought public office. He has a documented history of shutting down the allegations by buying silence or threatening overwhelming legal retaliation, among other dirty tricks. That's not to say that some people aren't falsely accused of horrible things, but these guys? Nah, not these guys. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But you get that this thread is about the government taking money from people who didn't grow any plants, right? People against whom the government has absolutely no evidence they grew plants or did anything else illicit that could be used to make a court case against the person... but they still took the money. It's fundamentally different to confiscating the property of someone who was convicted in court of using that property to grow or sell drugs. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I find that a little confusing since, at least around here, they've made no secret of the fact that the seized stuff becomes theirs. Not at all confusing, he's talking about personal corruption, i.e. those individual customs officers taking his money under cover of authority for their own enrichment. And since he was not given a receipt for a dollar amount at the time, and he claims the eventual receipt he was sent was shy $770 of what he was carrying, he may have a point. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I wonder why they're so fond of it though? The Kazazi family did not hear anything about their cash or why it was taken until more than a month after it was seized, when Customs finally sent a seizure notice to their home. . . The first thing the Kazazis noticed was that the dollar amount listed was $770 less than the amount that Kazazi said he took with him. The family said that the cash was all in $100 bills, making it impossible for it to add up to $57,330. Hottot said that these types of “errors” are common in forfeiture cases and that it is “always in the same direction” — government receipts coming up a few hundred or a few thousand dollars short of what defendants say they had. Ah. Ok then. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That information is contained within the article. He was boarding a domestic flight to an international connection. He hadn't filled out a form because he wasn't leaving the USA yet. (They also hadn't even bothered to do that anyway. According to the article they had a deadline to present a case or return the money, the deadline's long gone and they haven't presented any case or returned any money.) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the US Constitution covers property rights. It covers your right be secure against unreasonable seizure of your property. Which is why the blatantly transparent workaround shown above really shouldn't work. 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Possibly the most telling paragraph... "The CBP seizure notice gave the Kazazis a number of options for proceeding with the case. They could abandon the cash completely, or they could make an “offer in compromise” — letting CBP keep a certain percentage of the seized cash if it returned the rest. There were also options for challenging the seizure administratively through internal CBP channels or letting the case proceed in federal court. The Kazazis opted for federal court." Because nothing says 'we know you were involved in illicit activity and we have confidence in our case for seizing this money' like offering to split it with you if you shut up and go away The blatantly transparent workaraound is that the criminal proceeding is against your stuff (which doesn't have any rights) instead of you (and your rights). Hence United States of America Vs An artcile consisting of 50,000 cardboard boxes more or less, each containing one pair of clacker balls. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That FB clip was posted by the MARS Special Operations Group. And? Where did they get it from? Do you know what the source is? Why do you think it's bonafide? Right, because you believe all the lies that the far right fake news machine is selling you. The real fake news - extremist bloggers with no accountability or journalistic credentials or ethics who simply make stuff up. You said your group 'know who Jarrett is' and posted something utterly false. How do you even know you'd dislike her if you stopped believing the lies? Do you have any idea what you or they would think of her if the only articles you read were truth instead of libellous fiction? That's not what news is. That's another fabrication. You're willingly immersing yourself in the very definition of an echo chamber. All you're hearing is your own prejudice and dishonesty bouncing back at you, turned up to 11. (Still waiting for those photos of road blocks and armed guards, by the way.) You spreading lies. And not having the stones to admit it. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And yet you cannot deny that any part of what they wrote about your link is true. What was your bonafide source for the link? What made you trust them while they played you like a fiddle? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I'll own that. However, it is a reaction more than a motivation. What’s your motivation for pushing blatant lies about Valerie Jarrett? What’s your motivation for saying there is not one single thing you would be happy for the Republican Party to compromise over with the Dems in the name of bipartisan cooperation? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Because you've invented a circular argument that no-one else is using. You're disagreeing wth your own strawman. Numerous independent accounts by numerous different women over many, many years. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Where does that statement come from? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, they don't. That's a fabrication. If nothing else didn't the syntax give it away? A Stanford psychology student saying she is "A Iranian"? It's pathetic, laughably transparent falsehood. Yet you fell for it like you fall for everything else. Don't you get tired of having the wool pulled over your eyes? Still waiting for photos of those roadblocks, by the way Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What about those photos? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Of course it should be investigated, but only by a team that has no democrats in it. Only a team purely made up of Republicans can be truly unbiased. Unless they're Republicans who didn't support Trump in the Primaries, those guys are totally corrupt shills for the Dems. Trumpeteers from top to bottom, that's the only way it can be fair. Believe me, folks... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That's by the by though really. Most women like sex - it doesn't mean rape is ok. Some women like drugs - it doesn't mean being drugged is ok. There is a huge difference between taking a powerful psychoactive drug willingly and having it slipped in a drink without knowing what's about to happen. Hell, the fact that some women like the drug actually makes it more likely that perverts and rapists would use it - because if they got caught they'd just say "Yeah I gave her some 'luudes, she asked for them. You know how crazy the girl are for that stuff...." Do you want to have an ideagasm?