Trump did ask Russia for Clinton's E-mail.... For Pete's sake, that was a JOKE during a debate. I don't suppose Hillary thought it to be a funny one, but I sure did. Trump slammed her pretty hard on this topic, and those E-mails will never be found at this point because Hillary had them destroyed.
So... Did Russia cough up said E-mails? Um, nope. Actually, Russia didn't... I know, you are thinking the WiKi Leaks E-mail leak was this very thing....Sorry that would be wrong. The E-mail from that source where from the DNC's E-mail system and NOT Clinton's lost 30,000 E-mails Trump joked about the Russians having...
So... What are you claiming happened here? Trump jokingly asked for E-mails but never got them.... And this is a problem how?
441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly,
to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,
or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution
or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
OK, So we are talking about something valuable and tangible, money, donations a roll of film, something you can point to or hold in your hand or a service you can identify and say "Here, this is the item(s) given that has value". Correct?
Now, I assume you already have an idea what item(s) of value where given or received. Tell us what that was.
Now, if you are talking about items in paragraph C, it's not Trump's issue if the Russians did any of these things. Reading paragraph (2) clearly excepts the stuff in "C". The only way Trump (or an associate being directed by him) can violate this law is by accepting anything in paragraph A or B, which basically boils down to money or things of value (such as office space, office machines, long distance phone service and such). So is your item in that list? If not, we are done.. If so, then what evidence do you have that it was solicited or accepted?
BTW... Don Jr's meeting with a Russian lawyer does not constitute evidence of this. Everyone at the meeting agrees that nothing changed hands, no information was given no promises made by either side. Unless you have some kind of proof that they are lying or something that shows something changed hands, it's a wild theory and nothing more...
Also, by this statute, Trump is only at risk if he asked for, received a donation of a service, money or item that has tangible value to his campaign. Trump (or his campaign) had to know about it. If a foreign national does stuff in paragraph C, Trump (or his associates) didn't break the law.
If you cannot be bothered to make regular backups, I cannot be bothered to help you fix your mistakes or feel bad for your plight when something stupid happens.. Get off my lawn you idiot!
I've seen it delete the.git dir before so unless you also push it to a remote, that won't necessarily help.
Offsite backups, file system backups, wayback machine? Any of these works with Git... Of course, why use Git if you only keep one repo laying around...
BACKUP your important stuff or stupid mistakes will cost you..
Then... Why is it not rational to not demand that somebody come up with a plausible theory that is based on actual law?
Until somebody comes up with some actual criminal theories falling out of actual law, investigating is nothing more than a witch hunt. This "We KNOW he did something wrong, we just don't yet know what it is..." Doesn't fly with me, is impossible to discuss or investigate such blanket claims. Not to mention that such claims are basically unfair on their face.
But that's where the democrats are on all of this... They know for sure something criminal happened, but they cannot tell you what it might be only that it must be investigated! This is by design endless investigations and innuendo for political purposes. They are not interested in finding truth, quite the opposite because they know the truth doesn't help them, this is about keeping the investigations flowing to keep up the "Trump did something wrong" narrative for as long as they can..
IF you listen to the whole thing and not just sound bites and give him the benefit of the doubt, sure.
He obviously condemned all people acting violently at this event. Also, the "sides" here are not the Nazis and the other folks there, but those who where protesting to keep the statutes and those who where protesting for them to be removed. Again, the media is oversimplifying this event, pressing it into a narrative that suits their purpose and gives the wrong impression to the casual listener, making this into a some huge deal where Trump is propping up the Nazis. He's not, unless you are predisposed to believe the worst about him and are willing to ignore the whole of what he's said to pick apart a small section, take it out of context and spin it to bash Trump...
EVEN IF he did what you claim, you are claiming that what he did meets the Constitutional definition of Treason?
Showing support for Nazis is literally "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" which is the legal definition of treason.
Seriously? Got to trump up such nonsense to bludgeon Trump with? He doesn't support such groups, never has and likely never will. Of all the ridiculous charges to make. Even a cursory review of Trump's public statements on such things makes it clear you are obviously wrong.
Haven't you figured out yet that the media isn't telling you the whole truth here? Certainly the democrats are lying about Trump for political purposes. Yet you blindly accept what they say? Sad...
Yea, but he's doing what he can with that phone and pen, which is pretty much all Obama could do without Congress' help as well. Seems he's undoing a lot of Obama's policies, you just don't know about it because the media is obsessed with being critical of him in order to sell advertising with their latest "bombshell" story about Trump.
Personally, I blame Congress for most of the issue here, but hey, you can blame Trump if you like (or if it suits your political purposes)
Exactly.. But one has to add the following.. The democrats are using this to obstruct and delay by diminishing Trump's appeal and are hoping this translates into gains in the midterms and hopefully gives them a chance at retaking both Congress and the White House in 2020. It's politics of the scorched earth kind. They are playing a dangerous game and I think it's going to backfire.
Nice theory you have there on why folks got fired (or replaced).
Manafort got replaced as campaign manager right after the convention. Nobody at the time was saying it was because he was colluding with the Russians. In fact, it just seemed like a change in the campaign structure as they moved from winning the nomination to the general election. But, even if it WAS what you claim, wouldn't this be the right thing to do? Fire some guy who was talking with the Russians and planning illegal activity? I think it was just a personnel change because winning the general is a totally different ball game from winning the primaries.
On to Flynn. This guy was fired for not telling the whole truth about his conversations with the Russians during the transition. (Conversations which NOBODY is seriously claiming where illegal who has any knowledge of what was said.) There was also a paperwork error, where Flynn didn't disclose some foreign contacts to one agency, though he had disclosed them to another. Trump fired Flynn for not telling the whole truth to Pence. He omitted some parts of a conversation which where important, according to Trump, and that's why he got let go. If there was anything else, why the issues where not vetted by democrats during the confirmation hearings is a puzzle to me, unless they didn't exist before. Only after the firing of Flynn did anybody "connect the dots" an start equating this to some Russian conspiracy, but surely some democrats in congress would have already known all of this before his confirmation given all the theories here point to conversations that happened well before those hearings. I think there wasn't anything there, so he got fired for the stated reasons, and nothing more.
Comey? The firing of Comey was for obvious reasons which had nothing to do with the Russian investigation. It wouldn't stop an investigation and Comey testified before congress under oath that nobody in the administration tried to obstruct any investigation of the FBI. The Democrats didn't like Comey for his Hillary E-mail announcements and their impact on the election and many actually blamed him for Hillary's loss, up until the point Trump fired him, then all that changed. Again, this was political games being played where we "connect the dots" to Trump up some kind of issue, where none exists.
I like how the argument has shifted from "There's no evidence of collusion" to "Collusion isn't technically a crime". They will find enough for impeachment - don't kid yourself.
I've always been asking the question "What does collusion actually mean?" How's that a crime?
But hey, I'm asking for theories about actual criminal activity... What laws got broken here and by whom? How could this accusation that Trump (or his campaign) did anything illegal be true? I'm not seeing it... I'm not seeing what laws might have been broken... So tell me, what do you think it is?
Oh you misunderstand my point.. I'm asking for THEORIES, based on law. Find me the actual law that was broken, or all the evidence is meaningless anyway.
There are a bunch of folks acting like there was an obvious crime or two committed here, so I'm asking for someone to tell me what they propose said crime(s) actually are. Give me the law or laws that where possibly broken so we can discuss what kinds of evidence you need to support the conclusion of a crime having been committed. I'm just asking for some kind of workable theories. You pick the crime, find the law, then we can evaluate the evidence we know about and see if we are in the ball park. So far, we aren't.
Yea, that's my impression of this too. This is about keeping Trump from doing things by keeping up this specter of illegal activity by forever investigating something that never happened..
It's about politics, not about finding the truth. It's about disabling as much of Trumps political power as possible to prevent him from achieving any of his major goals or policies.. In short, it's all a sham...
Sad thing here is a lot of their base seems to be swallowing the whole idea, hook line and sinker....
Ok.. So which law is this? If you find one, there are a couple of other campaigns which may have some legal issues too.
I ask for the actual law because it is important that we know exactly what the imagined crime here is. Given your wording, I don't suppose that talking to a Russian would be enough for it to be a crime, but I'd like to see the law you think got broken so we can argue specifics.
I've never had anybody actually explain what crime was committed by Trump or his Campaign here. I've heard a lot of people claiming that there was a crime or multiple crimes, but nobody can point to any actual laws that they think where broken,. I dare you, come up with an actual law that got broken by Trump or his Campaign related to the Russians... I'm starting to think there isn't anything. And while you are at it, what crimes did the Russians commit that had any affect on the election?
Donald Trump continues to obstruct investigations into Russia's election hacking and refuses to protect our country against Russian attacks.
How on earth is he doing this? Firing Comey? Asking him to let Flynn go? Is that all you got or is there more? You do realize that neither of these things had any affect on your supposed investigations. You also heard that Comey admitted that Trump wasn't under investigation before h was let go, under oath, after his departure, before congress. There is no obstruction here.
Donald Trump's behavior is the literal definition of treason.
Only in your contrived "Trumped up" accusations of criminal activity by Trump would this be Treason. EVEN IF he did what you claim, you are claiming that what he did meets the Constitutional definition of Treason? LOL.. I think you are nuts..
I find it very surprising that the black boxes in airplanes don't communicate with a satellite in this day and age. The technology has been around for 30 years at this point.
The "black" orange boxes don't and likely won't ever do this, but the maintenance systems can and do transmit flight parameters and avionics faults to maintenance personal via satellite links while aircraft are in flight. This is an optional subscription service for most large commercial aircraft. It has been used in the past to help find crashed aircraft and diagnose the cause of the accident. However, in this case, the airline hadn't subscribed to the service, so the data wasn't being sent.
Also, there is a movement to create data logging to be sent to the ground for safe keeping for both CVR and FDR data, to also include video/pictures in near real time monitoring to detect high jacking and other issues. However, most of this stuff is conceptual and requires large amounts of bandwidth and ground storage.
Seriously, if you have physical access to a vehicle to access the CAN Bus, you can cut a break line or otherwise mess with anything on the car. Safety systems, Security systems, entertainment systems, you name it. Physical access implies all the same risks as this CAN buss "vulnerability" and MORE.
I'm not seeing the huge problem here, at least not for car owners.
Considering that the black box most likely is not in the open air with clear path to a satelite, the chance of its signals reaching the satelite are pretty slim.
Agreed, but if the plane was transmitting GPS coordinates up until the box went under water, we'd know exactly where it was and where to look for it.
They actually have this ability now, it's part of the maintenance system, where failures and exception logs get forwarded to the airline/manufacturer while the aircraft is in flight so the mechanics can be ready to repair the systems at it's destination. The airline though, hadn't paid the subscription fees to get the maintenance data forwarded via satellite so we don't have this data.
PLEASE stop listening to the reporting on this and listen to his fist and second statements on this. You will find that he CLEARLY did what you asked.
OR are you complaining because he condemned *other* groups too? Such as some radical violent groups from the left (Black Lives Matter comes to mind here). Groups which ARE provably violent yet you agree with so you don't want them condemned... In which case, you are a hypocrite, or worse, willfully ignorant of the truth....
Regardless of the evidence you've seen, we do not live in a state where the mob meters out justice. He has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers, not by the crowd's reaction to video being played on CNN, FOX and MSNBC.
All I'm saying is that he's entitled to his rights as repugnant as his actions may or may not be. ALL of us need to commit to making sure these rights are protected, regardless of how we feel about what he did. I fear that the mob mentality is ruling the day, where we are willing to forego due process in seemingly egregious cases, which reduces us to the same moral standing of a lynch mob metering out justice.
I'm proposing that we all need to be careful here.... We all need to demmand and only be satisfied if due process is followed. Why? Because it is the rule of law that protects ALL of us, where mob justice puts us all in danger.
He said, during the initial confusion following the event, that he condemned all groups, racists and violence.... Which may not have mentioned them BY NAME but sure included them by ideology. So that wasn't enough for you? OK....
A couple of days later he condemned them BY NAME, just so there was no question what he was saying initially condemned the proper groups.. However, even that is NOT enough for you? What do you want from him now? Who knows.
Can we just conclude that there is nothing he can say or do that will satisfy you, past, present or in the future? Because that's what I'm seeing here.
You don't have to like Trump, but can we at least be honest about what he said? No? Fine, keep the blue partisan KoolAid flowing, just admit you won't be satisfied, ever, regardless of what Trump says or does because he's Trump...
No, what I heard was Trump saying that violence and hate in this case was a two way street... And it was. Surely you see that there are those on the left who have been pretty violent recently, protesting election results by riots (complete with property damage and violence) or those who would prevent conservative speakers from speaking at colleges (Remember Berkley this spring?). The left is not immune to provoking violence, certainly since Trump was elected they have been pretty hateful and violent at times. Trump was calling BOTH sides out, not running interference for one or the other.
Of course, this doesn't fit with your "Trump Bad" narrative so you won't believe that either. You simply have to grasp at straws and try and paint Trump as bad by associating him with bad actors. It's a logical fallacy called guilt by association, only in this case, there is no association. Again, I suggest you listen directly to what Trump said, not how the reporters spin it.
Ah... Yes... The false association of the crazy Nazi types to Trump who condemns them... Right..
You do understand that you are inventing this relationship between Trump and these idiots out of thin air right? This whole story line was invented to dupe folks who were already pre-disposed to despise Trump into hating him for yet another reason. It's made up.
Of course you won't agree, because you don't want to actually consider the facts. The FACT that Trump condemned ALL radical groups, racists, hate and violence the very day this happened. All you know is that he didn't name specific groups and you think that implies he supports the groups he didn't name, when clearly this is NOT true. Go look at what he actually said, parse it and tell me the lie again...
A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged.
Nobody is stopping his supporters from writing stuff on a cardboard box and standing at intersections. I don't see a problem here.
Way to miss the point. Are we committed to the US constitution with it's bill of rights or not here? Perhaps the ends (silencing repugnant speech) justifies the means (ignoring the bill of rights)?
I'm not saying the "crowd sourced funding" companies don't have the right to refuse, I'm just pointing out that we just might letting the camel's nose into the tent by just accepting the idea that the accused don't deserve to ask for help with their legal costs. We need to error on the side of caution here and stay as far away from acting like a lynch mob rushing to judgment as we can. I've heard that there *might* be some undisclosed circumstances in play here as well and we need to whoa up and let law enforcement do their jobs, bring the appropriate charges and prove them in court, while letting the accused have the benefit of being presumed innocent until convicted. After all, this IS how the US Constitution says this works... One doesn't get tried in the court of public opinion and condemned by the mob in our system.
We all need to be guarding the other's rights no matter how repugnant the other's opinions (or actions) are to us. A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged. If we don't slow down and realize this, we are going to have no real justice, no real democracy. It will be mob rule, where those who are the angriest and most violent will rule with impunity, in short anarchy will rule with all it's violence and fury and bring with it death and destrcution.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump did ask Russia for Clinton's E-mail.... For Pete's sake, that was a JOKE during a debate. I don't suppose Hillary thought it to be a funny one, but I sure did. Trump slammed her pretty hard on this topic, and those E-mails will never be found at this point because Hillary had them destroyed.
So... Did Russia cough up said E-mails? Um, nope. Actually, Russia didn't... I know, you are thinking the WiKi Leaks E-mail leak was this very thing....Sorry that would be wrong. The E-mail from that source where from the DNC's E-mail system and NOT Clinton's lost 30,000 E-mails Trump joked about the Russians having...
So... What are you claiming happened here? Trump jokingly asked for E-mails but never got them.... And this is a problem how?
US code 441 e https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for— (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
OK, So we are talking about something valuable and tangible, money, donations a roll of film, something you can point to or hold in your hand or a service you can identify and say "Here, this is the item(s) given that has value". Correct?
Now, I assume you already have an idea what item(s) of value where given or received. Tell us what that was.
Now, if you are talking about items in paragraph C, it's not Trump's issue if the Russians did any of these things. Reading paragraph (2) clearly excepts the stuff in "C". The only way Trump (or an associate being directed by him) can violate this law is by accepting anything in paragraph A or B, which basically boils down to money or things of value (such as office space, office machines, long distance phone service and such). So is your item in that list? If not, we are done.. If so, then what evidence do you have that it was solicited or accepted?
BTW... Don Jr's meeting with a Russian lawyer does not constitute evidence of this. Everyone at the meeting agrees that nothing changed hands, no information was given no promises made by either side. Unless you have some kind of proof that they are lying or something that shows something changed hands, it's a wild theory and nothing more...
Also, by this statute, Trump is only at risk if he asked for, received a donation of a service, money or item that has tangible value to his campaign. Trump (or his campaign) had to know about it. If a foreign national does stuff in paragraph C, Trump (or his associates) didn't break the law.
No backups?
If you cannot be bothered to make regular backups, I cannot be bothered to help you fix your mistakes or feel bad for your plight when something stupid happens.. Get off my lawn you idiot!
I've seen it delete the .git dir before so unless you also push it to a remote, that won't necessarily help.
Offsite backups, file system backups, wayback machine? Any of these works with Git... Of course, why use Git if you only keep one repo laying around...
BACKUP your important stuff or stupid mistakes will cost you..
Then... Why is it not rational to not demand that somebody come up with a plausible theory that is based on actual law?
Until somebody comes up with some actual criminal theories falling out of actual law, investigating is nothing more than a witch hunt. This "We KNOW he did something wrong, we just don't yet know what it is..." Doesn't fly with me, is impossible to discuss or investigate such blanket claims. Not to mention that such claims are basically unfair on their face.
But that's where the democrats are on all of this... They know for sure something criminal happened, but they cannot tell you what it might be only that it must be investigated! This is by design endless investigations and innuendo for political purposes. They are not interested in finding truth, quite the opposite because they know the truth doesn't help them, this is about keeping the investigations flowing to keep up the "Trump did something wrong" narrative for as long as they can..
IF you listen to the whole thing and not just sound bites and give him the benefit of the doubt, sure.
He obviously condemned all people acting violently at this event. Also, the "sides" here are not the Nazis and the other folks there, but those who where protesting to keep the statutes and those who where protesting for them to be removed. Again, the media is oversimplifying this event, pressing it into a narrative that suits their purpose and gives the wrong impression to the casual listener, making this into a some huge deal where Trump is propping up the Nazis. He's not, unless you are predisposed to believe the worst about him and are willing to ignore the whole of what he's said to pick apart a small section, take it out of context and spin it to bash Trump...
Showing support for Nazis is literally "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" which is the legal definition of treason.
Seriously? Got to trump up such nonsense to bludgeon Trump with? He doesn't support such groups, never has and likely never will. Of all the ridiculous charges to make. Even a cursory review of Trump's public statements on such things makes it clear you are obviously wrong.
Haven't you figured out yet that the media isn't telling you the whole truth here? Certainly the democrats are lying about Trump for political purposes. Yet you blindly accept what they say? Sad...
Yea, but he's doing what he can with that phone and pen, which is pretty much all Obama could do without Congress' help as well. Seems he's undoing a lot of Obama's policies, you just don't know about it because the media is obsessed with being critical of him in order to sell advertising with their latest "bombshell" story about Trump.
Personally, I blame Congress for most of the issue here, but hey, you can blame Trump if you like (or if it suits your political purposes)
Exactly.. But one has to add the following.. The democrats are using this to obstruct and delay by diminishing Trump's appeal and are hoping this translates into gains in the midterms and hopefully gives them a chance at retaking both Congress and the White House in 2020. It's politics of the scorched earth kind. They are playing a dangerous game and I think it's going to backfire.
Nice theory you have there on why folks got fired (or replaced).
Manafort got replaced as campaign manager right after the convention. Nobody at the time was saying it was because he was colluding with the Russians. In fact, it just seemed like a change in the campaign structure as they moved from winning the nomination to the general election. But, even if it WAS what you claim, wouldn't this be the right thing to do? Fire some guy who was talking with the Russians and planning illegal activity? I think it was just a personnel change because winning the general is a totally different ball game from winning the primaries.
On to Flynn. This guy was fired for not telling the whole truth about his conversations with the Russians during the transition. (Conversations which NOBODY is seriously claiming where illegal who has any knowledge of what was said.) There was also a paperwork error, where Flynn didn't disclose some foreign contacts to one agency, though he had disclosed them to another. Trump fired Flynn for not telling the whole truth to Pence. He omitted some parts of a conversation which where important, according to Trump, and that's why he got let go. If there was anything else, why the issues where not vetted by democrats during the confirmation hearings is a puzzle to me, unless they didn't exist before. Only after the firing of Flynn did anybody "connect the dots" an start equating this to some Russian conspiracy, but surely some democrats in congress would have already known all of this before his confirmation given all the theories here point to conversations that happened well before those hearings. I think there wasn't anything there, so he got fired for the stated reasons, and nothing more.
Comey? The firing of Comey was for obvious reasons which had nothing to do with the Russian investigation. It wouldn't stop an investigation and Comey testified before congress under oath that nobody in the administration tried to obstruct any investigation of the FBI. The Democrats didn't like Comey for his Hillary E-mail announcements and their impact on the election and many actually blamed him for Hillary's loss, up until the point Trump fired him, then all that changed. Again, this was political games being played where we "connect the dots" to Trump up some kind of issue, where none exists.
I like how the argument has shifted from "There's no evidence of collusion" to "Collusion isn't technically a crime". They will find enough for impeachment - don't kid yourself.
I've always been asking the question "What does collusion actually mean?" How's that a crime?
But hey, I'm asking for theories about actual criminal activity... What laws got broken here and by whom? How could this accusation that Trump (or his campaign) did anything illegal be true? I'm not seeing it... I'm not seeing what laws might have been broken... So tell me, what do you think it is?
Oh you misunderstand my point.. I'm asking for THEORIES, based on law. Find me the actual law that was broken, or all the evidence is meaningless anyway.
There are a bunch of folks acting like there was an obvious crime or two committed here, so I'm asking for someone to tell me what they propose said crime(s) actually are. Give me the law or laws that where possibly broken so we can discuss what kinds of evidence you need to support the conclusion of a crime having been committed. I'm just asking for some kind of workable theories. You pick the crime, find the law, then we can evaluate the evidence we know about and see if we are in the ball park. So far, we aren't.
Yea, that's my impression of this too. This is about keeping Trump from doing things by keeping up this specter of illegal activity by forever investigating something that never happened..
It's about politics, not about finding the truth. It's about disabling as much of Trumps political power as possible to prevent him from achieving any of his major goals or policies.. In short, it's all a sham...
Sad thing here is a lot of their base seems to be swallowing the whole idea, hook line and sinker....
Ok.. So which law is this? If you find one, there are a couple of other campaigns which may have some legal issues too.
I ask for the actual law because it is important that we know exactly what the imagined crime here is. Given your wording, I don't suppose that talking to a Russian would be enough for it to be a crime, but I'd like to see the law you think got broken so we can argue specifics.
Donald Trump colluded....
By committing what crime(s)?
I've never had anybody actually explain what crime was committed by Trump or his Campaign here. I've heard a lot of people claiming that there was a crime or multiple crimes, but nobody can point to any actual laws that they think where broken,. I dare you, come up with an actual law that got broken by Trump or his Campaign related to the Russians... I'm starting to think there isn't anything. And while you are at it, what crimes did the Russians commit that had any affect on the election?
Donald Trump continues to obstruct investigations into Russia's election hacking and refuses to protect our country against Russian attacks.
How on earth is he doing this? Firing Comey? Asking him to let Flynn go? Is that all you got or is there more? You do realize that neither of these things had any affect on your supposed investigations. You also heard that Comey admitted that Trump wasn't under investigation before h was let go, under oath, after his departure, before congress. There is no obstruction here.
Donald Trump's behavior is the literal definition of treason.
Only in your contrived "Trumped up" accusations of criminal activity by Trump would this be Treason. EVEN IF he did what you claim, you are claiming that what he did meets the Constitutional definition of Treason? LOL.. I think you are nuts..
I find it very surprising that the black boxes in airplanes don't communicate with a satellite in this day and age. The technology has been around for 30 years at this point.
The "black" orange boxes don't and likely won't ever do this, but the maintenance systems can and do transmit flight parameters and avionics faults to maintenance personal via satellite links while aircraft are in flight. This is an optional subscription service for most large commercial aircraft. It has been used in the past to help find crashed aircraft and diagnose the cause of the accident. However, in this case, the airline hadn't subscribed to the service, so the data wasn't being sent.
Also, there is a movement to create data logging to be sent to the ground for safe keeping for both CVR and FDR data, to also include video/pictures in near real time monitoring to detect high jacking and other issues. However, most of this stuff is conceptual and requires large amounts of bandwidth and ground storage.
THIS!
Seriously, if you have physical access to a vehicle to access the CAN Bus, you can cut a break line or otherwise mess with anything on the car. Safety systems, Security systems, entertainment systems, you name it. Physical access implies all the same risks as this CAN buss "vulnerability" and MORE.
I'm not seeing the huge problem here, at least not for car owners.
Considering that the black box most likely is not in the open air with clear path to a satelite, the chance of its signals reaching the satelite are pretty slim.
Agreed, but if the plane was transmitting GPS coordinates up until the box went under water, we'd know exactly where it was and where to look for it.
They actually have this ability now, it's part of the maintenance system, where failures and exception logs get forwarded to the airline/manufacturer while the aircraft is in flight so the mechanics can be ready to repair the systems at it's destination. The airline though, hadn't paid the subscription fees to get the maintenance data forwarded via satellite so we don't have this data.
Again.. HE SAID THAT!
PLEASE stop listening to the reporting on this and listen to his fist and second statements on this. You will find that he CLEARLY did what you asked.
OR are you complaining because he condemned *other* groups too? Such as some radical violent groups from the left (Black Lives Matter comes to mind here). Groups which ARE provably violent yet you agree with so you don't want them condemned... In which case, you are a hypocrite, or worse, willfully ignorant of the truth....
Regardless of the evidence you've seen, we do not live in a state where the mob meters out justice. He has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers, not by the crowd's reaction to video being played on CNN, FOX and MSNBC.
All I'm saying is that he's entitled to his rights as repugnant as his actions may or may not be. ALL of us need to commit to making sure these rights are protected, regardless of how we feel about what he did. I fear that the mob mentality is ruling the day, where we are willing to forego due process in seemingly egregious cases, which reduces us to the same moral standing of a lynch mob metering out justice.
I'm proposing that we all need to be careful here.... We all need to demmand and only be satisfied if due process is followed. Why? Because it is the rule of law that protects ALL of us, where mob justice puts us all in danger.
HE SAID THAT... Multiple times now...
He said, during the initial confusion following the event, that he condemned all groups, racists and violence.... Which may not have mentioned them BY NAME but sure included them by ideology. So that wasn't enough for you? OK....
A couple of days later he condemned them BY NAME, just so there was no question what he was saying initially condemned the proper groups.. However, even that is NOT enough for you? What do you want from him now? Who knows.
Can we just conclude that there is nothing he can say or do that will satisfy you, past, present or in the future? Because that's what I'm seeing here.
You don't have to like Trump, but can we at least be honest about what he said? No? Fine, keep the blue partisan KoolAid flowing, just admit you won't be satisfied, ever, regardless of what Trump says or does because he's Trump...
No, what I heard was Trump saying that violence and hate in this case was a two way street... And it was. Surely you see that there are those on the left who have been pretty violent recently, protesting election results by riots (complete with property damage and violence) or those who would prevent conservative speakers from speaking at colleges (Remember Berkley this spring?). The left is not immune to provoking violence, certainly since Trump was elected they have been pretty hateful and violent at times. Trump was calling BOTH sides out, not running interference for one or the other.
Of course, this doesn't fit with your "Trump Bad" narrative so you won't believe that either. You simply have to grasp at straws and try and paint Trump as bad by associating him with bad actors. It's a logical fallacy called guilt by association, only in this case, there is no association. Again, I suggest you listen directly to what Trump said, not how the reporters spin it.
Ah... Yes... The false association of the crazy Nazi types to Trump who condemns them... Right..
You do understand that you are inventing this relationship between Trump and these idiots out of thin air right? This whole story line was invented to dupe folks who were already pre-disposed to despise Trump into hating him for yet another reason. It's made up.
Of course you won't agree, because you don't want to actually consider the facts. The FACT that Trump condemned ALL radical groups, racists, hate and violence the very day this happened. All you know is that he didn't name specific groups and you think that implies he supports the groups he didn't name, when clearly this is NOT true. Go look at what he actually said, parse it and tell me the lie again...
A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged.
Nobody is stopping his supporters from writing stuff on a cardboard box and standing at intersections. I don't see a problem here.
Way to miss the point. Are we committed to the US constitution with it's bill of rights or not here? Perhaps the ends (silencing repugnant speech) justifies the means (ignoring the bill of rights)?
I'm not saying the "crowd sourced funding" companies don't have the right to refuse, I'm just pointing out that we just might letting the camel's nose into the tent by just accepting the idea that the accused don't deserve to ask for help with their legal costs. We need to error on the side of caution here and stay as far away from acting like a lynch mob rushing to judgment as we can. I've heard that there *might* be some undisclosed circumstances in play here as well and we need to whoa up and let law enforcement do their jobs, bring the appropriate charges and prove them in court, while letting the accused have the benefit of being presumed innocent until convicted. After all, this IS how the US Constitution says this works... One doesn't get tried in the court of public opinion and condemned by the mob in our system.
THIS!
We all need to be guarding the other's rights no matter how repugnant the other's opinions (or actions) are to us. A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged. If we don't slow down and realize this, we are going to have no real justice, no real democracy. It will be mob rule, where those who are the angriest and most violent will rule with impunity, in short anarchy will rule with all it's violence and fury and bring with it death and destrcution.