Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 4 topics

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

BK@Onramp.net: Jun 14 03:31PM -0500


>> Without doubt.
>> Maybe now the GOP will think again about the NRA.
 
>What exactly did the NRA have to do with this?
 
Since it was a near calamity I think their followers will say that if
everyone had a gun there would've been no problem at all.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 14 01:46PM -0700

Would you care to explain that statement?
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Jun 14 01:52PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 12:44:58 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> A number of unhinged leftists have been in the news...including
> a NY play that enacts the assassination of Trump.
 
And the same Shakespearian play was performed in 2012 with
a depiction of Obama ... just where was the outrage of
delicate snowflakes then?
 
<http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Delta-Sponsored-2012-Guthrie-Theater-Season-Which-Featured-Obama-Inspired-Julius-Caesar-20170612>
 
 
> It all needs to stop.
 
What needs to stop is the glaring hypocrisy and shameless lies.
 
For example, Jeff Sessions dodged on just what legal principle
was his basis for refusing to answer questions while under oath.
 
 
-hh
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 14 01:54PM -0700

On 2017-06-14 1:52 PM, -hh wrote:
 
> For example, Jeff Sessions dodged on just what legal principle
> was his basis for refusing to answer questions while under oath.
 
> -hh
 
Or Senator Cotton sanctimoniously complaining about how people weren't
asking questions of Sessions that were strictly about Russia's
interference in the election...
 
...and then asking questions about the leaks, rather than Russia's
interference.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Jun 14 04:04PM -0500


>> What exactly did the NRA have to do with this?
 
> Since it was a near calamity I think their followers will say that if
> everyone had a gun there would've been no problem at all.
 
They had armed security there.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 14 02:07PM -0700

On 2017-06-14 2:04 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
 
>> Since it was a near calamity I think their followers will say that if
>> everyone had a gun there would've been no problem at all.
 
> They had armed security there.
 
Hmmmm...
 
Almost like the NRA meme that if every were armed things like these
wouldn't happen is complete bullshit, huh?
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 14 04:43PM -0500


>> Since it was a near calamity I think their followers will say that if
>> everyone had a gun there would've been no problem at all.
 
>They had armed security there.
 
That wouldn't be enough for some. "Everyone should be armed".
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 14 03:56PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:05:00 PM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
 
> > Since it was a near calamity I think their followers will say that if
> > everyone had a gun there would've been no problem at all.
 
> They had armed security there.
 
There was one guy.
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: Jun 14 08:21PM -0400

On 06/14/2017 11:51 AM, Dene wrote:
> Identity is known and the shooter has posted anti-Trump statements on social media.
> Therefore it's Trump's fault, in collusion with the Russians.
> Seriously...it could've been so much worse.
 
 
Wow, that's really surprising. Normally violent political extremists come from the right.
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: Jun 14 08:28PM -0400

On 06/14/2017 05:07 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> Hmmmm...
 
> Almost like the NRA meme that if every were armed things like these
> wouldn't happen is complete bullshit, huh?

It truly is. The US has more guns per capita than any other first world nation as well as the highest gun homicide rate.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
tmc1982@gmail.com: Jun 14 05:17PM -0700

http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/can-fox-ever-get-love-golf-fans.html
 
Fox airs its third U.S. Open this week
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 14 07:23PM -0500


>http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/can-fox-ever-get-love-golf-fans.html
 
>Fox airs its third U.S. Open this week
 
Nothing at all wrong with Fox Sports.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 14 04:52PM -0700

...what will you wingnuts have to say?
 
'The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia's role in
the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part
of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether
President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.
 
The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's
conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI
investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during
the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination
between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been
looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump
associates, officials said.'
 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html>
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 14 07:22PM -0500

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:52:31 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
wrote:
 
>...what will you wingnuts have to say?
 
I don't know what they will say, but this really puts the kibosh on
Trump firing Mueller.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 14 01:24PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 2:48:26 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> Yes, actually, he can.
 
> But he didn't.
 
> He refused to answer questions with no valid grounds to do so.
 
No, he can't. Only POTUS can do that, and he hasn't done it. Sessions
said he was refusing to answer questions because Trump might invoke
exec. privilege sometime in the future, which is a lame-ass excuse.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 14 01:42PM -0700

On 2017-06-14 1:24 PM, John B. wrote:
 
> No, he can't. Only POTUS can do that, and he hasn't done it. Sessions
> said he was refusing to answer questions because Trump might invoke
> exec. privilege sometime in the future, which is a lame-ass excuse.
 
He can invoke it, but not on his own behalf.
 
He's the one testifying, so if asked a question, he can invoke the
executive privilege to decline to answer.
 
How else could it work?
 
Other than that, I agree with you: he provided no legal grounds upon
which he could refuse to answer.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 14 01:45PM -0700

No he cannot. The only protection he can invoke is the 5th amendment.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 14 01:50PM -0700

On 2017-06-14 1:45 PM, John B. wrote:
> No he cannot. The only protection he can invoke is the 5th amendment.
 
So then how does executive privilege work in practice, John.
 
A witness such as Sessions is testifying, and there is a legitimate
instance of executive privilege.
 
Now describe how that goes.
"Willie Brennan" <bbren@aol.com>: Jun 14 05:10PM -0400

"John B." wrote in message
news:30adb982-8531-4b2a-9a05-1263efe5a6fc@googlegroups.com...
 
>No he cannot. The only protection he can invoke is the 5th amendment.
 
Shit Stain is a congressional law scholar.....today. Another one of Shit
Stains many fields of non-expertise.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 14 02:23PM -0700

On 2017-06-14 2:10 PM, Willie Brennan wrote:
 
>> No he cannot. The only protection he can invoke is the 5th amendment.
 
> Shit Stain is a congressional law scholar.....today. Another one of
> Shit Stains many fields of non-expertise.
 
Perhaps you'd do well to look up the definition of "invoke"...
"Willie Brennan" <bbren@aol.com>: Jun 14 05:37PM -0400

"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:ohs9g3$dcb$1@news.datemas.de...
 
On 2017-06-14 2:10 PM, Willie Brennan wrote:
 
> Shit Stain is a congressional law scholar.....today. Another one of
> Shit Stains many fields of non-expertise.
 
>Perhaps you'd do well to look up the definition of "invoke"...
 
You are responding to the wrong poster, Shit Stain.
 
Perhaps you would do well to look up the definition of "shit for brains".
 
Seems like you are in another swoon.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 14 04:45PM -0500

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:23:14 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
wrote:
 
 
>> Shit Stain is a congressional law scholar.....today. Another one of
>> Shit Stains many fields of non-expertise.
 
>Perhaps you'd do well to look up the definition of "invoke"...
 
He probably still wouldn't understand it.
"Willie Brennan" <bbren@aol.com>: Jun 14 05:51PM -0400

wrote in message news:aib3kcdsce98plonlahb0n16t379c9k12h@4ax.com...
 
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:23:14 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
wrote:
 
>> Shit Stains many fields of non-expertise.
 
>Perhaps you'd do well to look up the definition of "invoke"...
 
>He probably still wouldn't understand it.
 
And Shit Stan II chimes in.
 
How's the granddaughter? Still...............
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 14 03:59PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 4:50:07 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> A witness such as Sessions is testifying, and there is a legitimate
> instance of executive privilege.
 
> Now describe how that goes.
 
As I said, the only person who can invoke exec. privilege is
POTUS. Sessions can invoke the 5th amendment or he can just
refuse to answer, which puts him in danger of being held in
contempt of Congress. He can't invoke exec. privilege. If he
could, he would have.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 14 04:05PM -0700

On 2017-06-14 3:59 PM, John B. wrote:
> refuse to answer, which puts him in danger of being held in
> contempt of Congress. He can't invoke exec. privilege. If he
> could, he would have.
 
Sorry, but people testifying in the past have used executive privilege
to decline to answer...
 
...so I'm asking you what the mechanics of that actually were.
 
"Mr. So and So, my question to you is..."
 
"I decline to answer..."
 
Now explain.
 
Your error is in the idea that to "invoke" something, you must be the
one who is being protected. That's not what "invoke' means.
 
Sessions can be the one to "cite or appeal to [in this case, executive
privilege] as an authority for an action"
 
He doesn't have to be the one who has the privilege to invoke it...
 
...but he does need instruction from the president in order to use it.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment