tvc184

  If they think Powell committed a felony, indict him.   I don't think using private email is a violation as long as the email is turned over the government. For some reason Hillary by her own admission held onto 50,000+ emails that she was required to turn over to the government two years ago by law.    It is not the use of private email that is the violation but the law saying that she was to sign a document on leaving the service and guaranteeing that all documents including emails were turned over when she left. Two years later that was not done.    What does that have to do with Colin Powell (other than wishful thinking) and why should Hillary get a pass for what seems clearly is a felony because Powell used private email. As far as I know no one has said that Powell hid his emails that he made from a private account but again, if someone can show that he committed a felony, indict him and take it to court.    Now if Hillary claims to never have signed the affidavit swearing that she turned over all documents as required, that brings up another question. Why was she allowed to leave and violate the law on signing the affidavit to turn over all documents?

The claim of treason is ridiculous. All a person has to do is look up the law on treason and see how stupid the claim is. To make it short, treason requires waging war against the US or giving aid and comfort to enemies.    The Logan Act claim is another joke. There has never been a prosecution for it and it is likely unconstitutionally vague in any case. The very title of the Logan Act in the US Code is Private Correspondence with Foreign Governments.    I supposed that some think that the US Congress is "private correspondence".    The letter sent to Iran only states US law and Constitution. If stating the law is a crime, then there sure must be a lot of criminals out there. Had part of Congress tried to carry on separate negotiations it might have some valid point but the senators merely stating the law is hardly a violation of the Private Correspondence with Foreign Governments law. 

You sure that isn't The Onion?

  I agree with you just about 100% in judging each person as an individual and not part of a group. I never say anything about the low information voters nonsense or post from political websites. I usually stay out of the conversations for the most part but at times feel the opportunity to post in reference to the "you people" comments such as Tee made above.    It is kind of odd however to see you to complain about people talking about party affiliation or other grouping when you are at the moment posting in a forum called Political Forum. That is akin to complaining about people in the baseball forum asking about which pitchers are going to be the best this year.    Kind of like, "You people over in the "political" forum.... quit talking about politics!".   :D

  Facts:   The Democrats have not been in control of the US Congress for more than 4 years.   Gas prices are not controlled by the government and at the moment they have risen about 40 cents a gallon in the last three weeks.    The unemployment rate might be down on paper but people employed is not up significantly. The people looking for work simply quit looking for work. If you are out of a job and looking for work you are unemployed. If you still out of a job and give up you are not unemployed. Such is government statistics.   

    Not really a shock no matter the outcome of anything else. The chief being an at will employee (unlike many patrol officers) is usually the first to go in any controversy because he is retained and paid by the city council which coincidentally are politicians and will have to again run for office. Chiefs are almost always sacrificial lambs bearing no evidence as to what has really occurred. 

    That is correct. All it takes is reasonable suspicion of a crime and in the case of jaywalking (which in itself is not really a law in most places but a generic term meaning pedestrian violations) it goes beyond reasonable suspicion and all the way to probable cause. Of course realistically in many times it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt but by our system even videoing it is not proof until it goes to court. 

  Actually the report said 95%.

It is called scapegoats.    The city manager is HIRED by the council who then look at his requests for money/budget and oversee where the money is made and where it is spent. The CM is basically the day to day operations manager of the city and does the bidding of the city council. Now the same city council that HIRED him is acting shocked at where the money came from that they voted on (I am assuming the issue is with traffic citation money) and how it was spent?    Right.... and I have the Liberty Bell for sale, cheap.    The CM is cannon fodder for the federal government to try and limit any further involvement.    Anyone that doesn't believe that many or most small cities get much of their money from traffic citations is living under a rock. I don't agree with it but that is simply how most of them work. They figure traffic citations into their budget just like property and sales taxes.    Also, all city courts that I am aware of operate separately from the police department including their budget and who makes their rules. Most of the many officers that I know do not particularly like their city courts. Although there might have been problems with the CM or city court, they usually have little or nothing to do with the police department and many times the police departments are at odds with the other two city government departments.    To try and say the police department is somehow tainted by the CM or the city court is a stretch unless they can find some kind of collusion. The federal government looks into the police department and find what they think is massive trouble in the city court and they are blaming it on the police.    Is the federal government going to try and force out the elected officials that set the rules, tone and do the hiring for the CM and municipal judge? 

That is roughly the equivalent of the Democratic Party pledging allegiance to MSNBC.

    Stockman got only 19% of the vote and there is always the "vote the bums out crowd" no matter who is on the ticket. We always get the Ron Paul libertarians that make a bunch of noise but have very little real backing.    The person that many think of as the consummate conservative, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, got just over 61% of the vote in her last election for Senate and Cornyn got only 2% less at 59% in 2014. In fact Cornyn upped his percentage from the previous election when he won with 55% of the vote. I don't see Cornyn being in any trouble unless he has some serious faux pas like an indictment. 

I really thought that it was great that the president felt compelled to continue his agenda by almost apologizing publicly for no indictment or in the way he tried to put it, Officer Wilson got away with this one in a loophole of the law. He should have apologized to Wilson but that is obviously beyond him. 

What was in the emails?

  I honestly think that you are going to have a hard time convincing the people that allowing them to vote for their own senator is tyranny. 

  Without regard to what system we use and not disagreeing with your premise.......   Your argument seems invalid by invoking the Constitution and its original intent as a reason to repeal the amendment.    You say correctly that the Constitution set it up for state legislatures to elect its own Senators. But...... the same Constitution also makes amendments possible in case people's opinions of what the law or rights should be change. Apparently the people made their decision. Those same people also ended slavery by amendment, guaranteed due process for "everyone", the right to keep and bear arms, limit how many times a person can be the president, guaranteed the right to privacy and so on. Which ones of those that are not in the Constitution do you want to give up and get back to the original intent?  Again, it is not to disagree with your position but arguing intent of the Constitution as opposed to any amendment seems invalid as an argument when you stack it up against other amendments where there was no original intent. 

I wonder how much press the DOJ report is on Darren Wilson.      "There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson's stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety,"   It goes on to say that there is no evidence that Brown had his hands up, no evidence that he was shot in the back and was he definitely advancing toward Wilson when he was shot. So much for the bogus claims of Wilson shooting Brown in the back, Brown was trying to give up and that the prosecutors were covering up for a local cop. Meaning that entire diatribe by Obama, Holder and others of their ilk caused riots for justice and it turns out that the locals had it correct all along.    But.... that is just the facts.............. 

How many people were arrested for looting?

You are 100% correct. There was no way that Eric Holder was not going to leave without proclaiming racism no matter of any evidence in the case. This is especialy true when he knew from the very first day that therr were no charges to be filed but he and Obama had to save face after sending government officials to a felon's funeral.

In that forum? Yes I looked at the photos of the crime scene the morning of the shooting. I wasn't going to say anything publicly unless the department that jurisdiction released the info.

  Not so much slacking as much as not wanting to put it out before the media does. 

Any public news on the violence so far?

  From what I read in the article, it is plausible only under the basis of the IRS IT people being so incompetent and bungling. This is a federal law enforcement agency, not some fly by night company selling items on the internet.    How does the agency that is responsible for collecting all taxes and fees for the government so irresponsible that it can't even do what a small company can do? The only explanation that seems to negate a cover up is that the IRS must have the most incompetent employees in the country.    Kind of gives you that warm fuzzy feeling in trusting the government. So do you think that they are truly as incompetent as the article that you posted claims they had to be in order to have it believable or was it a cover up? 

    The same way they pay for it now..... they don't. That is why most doctors do not and will not accept Medicare. They do a procedure that costs the average person and insurance company $200 but the federal government sends them $35 and says take it or leave it.   It is that kind of short changing that will end medicine as we know it. It is like a person going to Saltgrass restaurant and running up a $150 bill but only paying $25 at the register and expecting them to stay open at the same quality of service. That is also why medicine in many cases charges such high fees for those of us that actually have to pay for services rendered. It is to pay for those that will not pay which includes the federal government. 

Back to the thread topic, the whole DOJ investigation was a political sham. It would take little more than a rookie police officer to see that there were no viable criminal charges in this case. In fact that is exactly what the county DA said before the state stepped in and went to trial without going to a grand jury for an indictment (not even legal in TX or federal law).    There was never proof beyond a reasonable doubt of any crime by Zimmerman, even with the press faking so much evidence. The DOJ dragging it out was for politics, not criminal justice. 

    I believe that they are not needed nearly as much and they certainly aren't as powerful.    I also believe that non-union salaries are related to union salaries since most industries can unionize. It is one thing to say that companies today do not abuse their workers "as bad" and pay a more deserved salary but it is different to say that those companies would be that accommodating if unions ceased to exist or be legal. I don't believe for a minute that all companies or industries are nearly as concerned for their employees as they are for profits. That is the way it should be as they are in the business of making money, AKA capitalism. It also means that without the right to get together as a group, companies with huge work forces would probably care less of disgruntled employees or working conditions.