EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

[TankTop5]

So yet again you’ve no credible source to back up your assertions and are just making stuff up as you go along.

It’s not my job nor am I going to waste my day looking up endless news sources that are easily available for you to look up for yourself. If you want to choose willful ignorance that’s your prerogative, I can only suggest you look at both sides and come to your own conclusions

 

[Trell]

It’s not my job nor am I going to waste my day looking up endless news sources that are easily available for you to look up for yourself. If you want to choose willful ignorance that’s your prerogative, I can only suggest you look at both sides and come to your own conclusions

This is a typically behavior when someone ask you to backup your assertions on a variety of subjects. When you do give a link it often just results in a facepalm by the readers.

I think you argue in bad faith and sometimes just lies or otherwise make up stuff. So even when you could conceivably know what you’re talking about you’re distrusted with no benefit of doubt.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Harris' conduct* when she was a prosecutor has always bothered me.

>>>n a scathing ruling, the judge [Massulo] concluded that prosecutors had failed to fulfill their constitutional duty to tell defense attorneys about problems surrounding Deborah Madden, the now-retired technician at the heart of the cocaine-skimming scandal that led police to shut down the drug analysis section of their crime lab. . . . Last fall, Harris' lead drug prosecutor complained about Madden's unreliability in a memo to her bosses, information that was also wrongly kept from the defense, the judge found. . . . Massullo wrote that top drug prosecutor Sharon Woo's Nov. 19 memo about Madden showed that prosecutors "at the highest levels of the district attorney's office knew that Madden was not a dependable witness at trial and that there were serious concerns regarding the crime lab." . . . The failure by Harris' office "to produce information actually in its possession regarding Madden and the crime lab is a violation of the defendants' constitutional rights," Massullo wrote.<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-rips-Harris-office-for-hiding-problems-3263797.php

I'd still vote for her over Trump, but I'm not a fan.


*In terms of conduct, it's not 100% clear if Harris knew about the problems, but I have a hard time believing she didn't know. Even if she didn't have direct knowledge, she did not put procedures in place to make sure this type of a violation didn't happen under her watch.

>>>Harris ultimately enacted a Brady disclosure policy years later, but only after a 2010 scandal involving her office’s failure to disclose information to defendants led to the dismissal of 1,000 drug-related cases. Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo criticized Harris at the time for failing to “disclose information that should have been disclosed.”<<<

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/10/kamala-harris-rejected-staff-push-for-brady-policy-in-2005-wsj.html

 

[ryanosaur]

Harris' conduct* when she was a prosecutor has always bothered me.

>>>n a scathing ruling, the judge [Massulo] concluded that prosecutors had failed to fulfill their constitutional duty to tell defense attorneys about problems surrounding Deborah Madden, the now-retired technician at the heart of the cocaine-skimming scandal that led police to shut down the drug analysis section of their crime lab. . . . Last fall, Harris' lead drug prosecutor complained about Madden's unreliability in a memo to her bosses, information that was also wrongly kept from the defense, the judge found. . . . Massullo wrote that top drug prosecutor Sharon Woo's Nov. 19 memo about Madden showed that prosecutors "at the highest levels of the district attorney's office knew that Madden was not a dependable witness at trial and that there were serious concerns regarding the crime lab." . . . The failure by Harris' office "to produce information actually in its possession regarding Madden and the crime lab is a violation of the defendants' constitutional rights," Massullo wrote.<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-rips-Harris-office-for-hiding-problems-3263797.php

I'd still vote for her over Trump, but I'm not a fan.


*In terms of conduct, it's not 100% clear if Harris knew about the problems, but I have a hard time believing she didn't know. Even is she didn't have direct knowledge, she did not put procedures in place to make sure this type of a violation didn't happen under her watch.

>>>Harris ultimately enacted a Brady disclosure policy years later, but only after a 2010 scandal involving her office’s failure to disclose information to defendants led to the dismissal of 1,000 drug-related cases. Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo criticized Harris at the time for failing to “disclose information that should have been disclosed.”<<<

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/10/kamala-harris-rejected-staff-push-for-brady-policy-in-2005-wsj.html

When she was still in that roll here in Cali, both as DA and AG, she supported some policies that were out of touch with the voting populace. Of course she 'evolved' on her stances over time.
There was a point where I was surprised she was pursuing higher offices based on everything I had seen. Alas, here she is: potential substitute-presidential candidate... just wow.

It will be interesting to see how everything plays out over the next few weeks.

 

[Dude#1279435]

This is a typically behavior when someone ask you to backup your assertions on a variety of subjects. When you do give a link it often just results in a facepalm by the readers.

I think you argue in bad faith and sometimes just lies or otherwise make up stuff. So even when you could conceivably know what you’re talking about you’re distrusted with no benefit of doubt.

Trump said to Putin: Wanna snort some coke, buddy? Dis sh-t is tremendous! Its the truth. All you have to do is look for it.

 

[Mikado463]

Harris' conduct* when she was a prosecutor has always bothered me.

>>>n a scathing ruling, the judge [Massulo] concluded that prosecutors had failed to fulfill their constitutional duty to tell defense attorneys about problems surrounding Deborah Madden, the now-retired technician at the heart of the cocaine-skimming scandal that led police to shut down the drug analysis section of their crime lab. . . . Last fall, Harris' lead drug prosecutor complained about Madden's unreliability in a memo to her bosses, information that was also wrongly kept from the defense, the judge found. . . . Massullo wrote that top drug prosecutor Sharon Woo's Nov. 19 memo about Madden showed that prosecutors "at the highest levels of the district attorney's office knew that Madden was not a dependable witness at trial and that there were serious concerns regarding the crime lab." . . . The failure by Harris' office "to produce information actually in its possession regarding Madden and the crime lab is a violation of the defendants' constitutional rights," Massullo wrote.<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-rips-Harris-office-for-hiding-problems-3263797.php

I'd still vote for her over Trump, but I'm not a fan.


*In terms of conduct, it's not 100% clear if Harris knew about the problems, but I have a hard time believing she didn't know. Even is she didn't have direct knowledge, she did not put procedures in place to make sure this type of a violation didn't happen under her watch.

>>>Harris ultimately enacted a Brady disclosure policy years later, but only after a 2010 scandal involving her office’s failure to disclose information to defendants led to the dismissal of 1,000 drug-related cases. Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo criticized Harris at the time for failing to “disclose information that should have been disclosed.”<<<

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/10/kamala-harris-rejected-staff-push-for-brady-policy-in-2005-wsj.html

your sentiments ring soundly and I agree ........

 

[Mr._Clark]

When she was still in that roll here in Cali, both as DA and AG, she supported some policies that were out of touch with the voting populace. Of course she 'evolved' on her stances over time.
There was a point where I was surprised she was pursuing higher offices based on everything I had seen. Alas, here she is: potential substitute-presidential candidate... just wow.

It will be interesting to see how everything plays out over the next few weeks.

Interesting. My impression was that she was a bit too politically ambitious early on and she let that get the better of her. But that might be incorrect. I have no inside knowledge whatsoever.

For some reason, I find myself thinking about the lyrics from Mrs. Robinson:

>>>Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you
Woo, woo, woo
What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson?
Joltin' Joe has left and gone away
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey<<<

According to wiki:

>>In a New York Times op-ed in March 1999, shortly after DiMaggio's death, Simon discussed this meeting and explained that the line was meant as a sincere tribute to DiMaggio's unpretentious and modest heroic stature, in a time when popular culture magnifies and distorts how we perceive our heroes. He further reflected: "In these days of Presidential transgressions and apologies and prime-time interviews about private sexual matters, we grieve for Joe DiMaggio and mourn the loss of his grace and dignity, his fierce sense of privacy, his fidelity to the memory of his wife and the power of his silence".<<<

 

[ryanosaur]

Interesting. My impression was that she was a bit too politically ambitious early on and she let that get the better of her. But that might be incorrect. I have no inside knowledge whatsoever.

I don’t think you play that game without being… ambitious.
I just didn’t think she would succeed going from state to national level. I think a lot of her ‘evolutions’ from DA to AG were because of those ambitions. Clearly she succeeded in convincing enough Californians that she was worthy of becoming a senator.

Regardless… here we are today.

*head-desk

 

[lovinthehd]

simple actually........Biden chose her for identity politics rather than competence.

Pence was less competent, so?

 

[TankTop5]

I don’t think you play that game without being… ambitious.
I just didn’t think she would succeed going from state to national level. I think a lot of her ‘evolutions’ from DA to AG were because of those ambitions. Clearly she succeeded in convincing enough Californians that she was worthy of becoming a senator.

Regardless… here we are today.

*head-desk

She didn’t need to convince anyone other than political elite. You’ll tow the party line and do what we want, your name is on the ballot in a blue state. Ronald McDonald gets on the ballot as a Democrat in California and it’s an auto win.

 

[nanook_the_eskimo]

Hi,
It never fails to amaze me where politics will inevitably always end up. This is an audio video forum. For that reason, I feel like politics should be left out of things because it’s an unnecessary complicated matter that will end up dividing us in the end. Why not interact with each other by throwing around ideas, designs, theories, and things related to the audio video sector? In this way, we could grow together and help further progress this hobby and industry with each persons creative and unique input. I know, someone will tell me I’m an idiot and to not comment if I don’t like the subject matter.. but really, am I wrong? What would it hurt to stay on track and keep the subjects related to the reason this website was built in the first place.
Best Regards,

C

 

[Dude#1279435]

Hi,
It never fails to amaze me where politics will inevitably always end up. This is an audio video forum. For that reason, I feel like politics should be left out of things because it’s an unnecessary complicated matter that will end up dividing us in the end. Why not interact with each other by throwing around ideas, designs, theories, and things related to the audio video sector? In this way, we could grow together and help further progress this hobby and industry with each persons creative and unique input. I know, someone will tell me I’m an idiot and to not comment if I don’t like the subject matter.. but really, am I wrong? What would it hurt to stay on track and keep the subjects related to the reason this website was built in the first place.
Best Regards,

C

See title header "The Steam Vent."

 

[nanook_the_eskimo]

See title header "The Steam Vent."

Yeah, I’m fully aware of the, “The Steam Vent” title. Topics like this are probably exactly why it was added to the site in the first place. I just don’t understand why people would want to bring their political beliefs and drama to a place that doesn’t even relate. It’s like being an audio store that sells food and drinks.
It would be impressive to see what people could accomplish if they could leave the bullshit at the door and work together to come up with new ideas or solutions to problems. Instead of being the problem. To each their own though.
Hope everyone has a good day that’s full of good music and laughter.
Best Regards,

C

 

[Mikado463]

Pence was less competent, so?

LOL, nice deflection

 

[highfigh]

LOL, you forgot about Dan Quayle ......

Oh, yeah.....OTOH, I rarely think about past VPs.

 

[highfigh]

Well, it looks like she did a bit more than that.
Kamala Harris was tapped to fix the immigration crisis. Then the problem shifted - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Kamala Harris came in to solve issues in Central America. But the problem is now much bigger. | CNN Politics

I'm not sure what you expect from her.
What does the vice president do? (theconversation.com)
From my observations, VP's don't generally have a whole lot to do in any administration. I would have to do a Google search to see if Mike Pence did anything at all, because nothing comes to mind. Might there be a better presidential candidate for the Dems? Possibly.

But, when the opponent's list of misdeeds, character flaws and intellectual shortcomings (I'm sure I don't need to list them) is as long as your arm, the bar that a Dem candidate must clear in order to be more deserving of a vote is very low indeed.


Could you expand on that?

VP is also president of the US Senate but I haven't seen much, if anything about her casting tie-breaking votes- I remember seeing this when Biden was VP. Pence would have been on a short leash.

I found one site about VPs and it mentioned Harris' "decisive vote' on the American Rescue Plan that won 219-212. Not seeing how it was 'decisive'.

VPs are often 'under the radar'.

The first link you posted contains "The Biden administration is looking at how it can apply its plan to tackle root causes of migration to the hemisphere, like matching people to jobs where there are labor shortages in the region, a senior administration official told CNN."- the US has tens of millions who don't work; how is adding millions to the population a good thing?

I'm not going to sign up in order to read the second link but in searching for 'Kamala Harris accomplishments', I saw more than one mention of her interview with Lester Holt (NBC) where she downplayed the urgency of the Guatamala/Mexico visit.

Look at the number of border crossings since Biden was elected and ask yourself "What has been done about this?".

 

[cpp]

Yeah, I’m fully aware of the, “The Steam Vent” title. Topics like this are probably exactly why it was added to the site in the first place. I just don’t understand why people would want to bring their political beliefs and drama to a place that doesn’t even relate. It’s like being an audio store that sells food and drinks.
It would be impressive to see what people could accomplish if they could leave the bullshit at the door and work together to come up with new ideas or solutions to problems. Instead of being the problem. To each their own though.
Hope everyone has a good day that’s full of good music and laughter.
Best Regards,

C

You sure your real handle isn't
Melisma

 

[GO-NAD!]

VP is also president of the US Senate but I haven't seen much, if anything about her casting tie-breaking votes- I remember seeing this when Biden was VP. Pence would have been on a short leash.

I found one site about VPs and it mentioned Harris' "decisive vote' on the American Rescue Plan that won 219-212. Not seeing how it was 'decisive'.

VPs are often 'under the radar'.

The first link you posted contains "The Biden administration is looking at how it can apply its plan to tackle root causes of migration to the hemisphere, like matching people to jobs where there are labor shortages in the region, a senior administration official told CNN."- the US has tens of millions who don't work; how is adding millions to the population a good thing?

I'm not going to sign up in order to read the second link but in searching for 'Kamala Harris accomplishments', I saw more than one mention of her interview with Lester Holt (NBC) where she downplayed the urgency of the Guatamala/Mexico visit.

Look at the number of border crossings since Biden was elected and ask yourself "What has been done about this?".

Well, it's difficult to do anything about the border when the GOP doesn't act in good faith.
Murphy says GOP voted against border bill to keep border ‘chaotic,’ help Trump campaign (thehill.com)

I'm still wondering how you came to this conclusion.

If Harris makes it to the oval office, it will go very badly in light of the problems in far too many places where the leaders hate the US.

 

[highfigh]

Well, it's difficult to do anything about the border when the GOP doesn't act in good faith.
Murphy says GOP voted against border bill to keep border ‘chaotic,’ help Trump campaign (thehill.com)

I'm still wondering how you came to this conclusion.

Neither side is acting in good faith if the country's survival is used as the criterion. The Dems want more voters and give out free stuff, the GOP wants to block everything and neither wants to look at the problems without thinking "What's in it, for me?".

I hope you don't think Biden announced that he "could close the border tomorrow" for anything other than votes. He waited more than three years to say that, after reversing the policies in place when he was inaugurated. Don't just look at the number of migrants, look at WHO'S coming across- the number from mainland China two months ago was more than all of last year.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Neither side is acting in good faith if the country's survival is used as the criterion. The Dems want more voters and give out free stuff, the GOP wants to block everything and neither wants to look at the problems without thinking "What's in it, for me?".

I hope you don't think Biden announced that he "could close the border tomorrow" for anything other than votes. He waited more than three years to say that, after reversing the policies in place when he was inaugurated. Don't just look at the number of migrants, look at WHO'S coming across- the number from mainland China two months ago was more than all of last year.

Did Biden say that? Because this is what is stated in the linked article:

In coming out against the deal, Trump said that it would help Biden by proving Democrats could pass substantive border policy. Republicans have since called on Biden to shut down the border using executive power — a power the president says he does not have.

“He does not have the legal authority to shut down the border. Our bill, our bipartisan bill, would have given him that authority,” Murphy said. “If crossings were too high on a daily basis, the president could shut down portions of the border.”

Maybe China is trying to clear out their insane asylums.

x.com

x.com