NFL - players will be fined for kneeling

[homersapien 11,347]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

As you know, That would be unconstitutional

How about "encouraging fines - or worse - for black people making a valid protest."

That's constitutional.  Is it appropriate?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

52 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Nola + Elle = white-hot heat.

@AUFAN78 you better shut this down quick

I actually have a nice tan going on now so I’m more caramel than white. 

[homersapien 11,347]

“I don’t think people should be staying in locker rooms,” Trump told Fox News. “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing. You shouldn’t be there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.”

Is that an appropriate thing for the POTUS to say?

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

How about "encouraging fines - or worse - for black people making a valid protest."

That's constitutional.  Is it appropriate?

Who encouraged fines for black people making a protest?

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

20 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I actually have a nice tan going on now so I’m more caramel than white. 

Oh I wasn’t talking about your skin color. I meant, so hot that the heat is “white.” Which is super duper hot. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

40 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Oh I wasn’t talking about your skin color. I meant, so hot that the heat is “white.” Which is super duper hot. 

See in less than 24 hours I’ve got you flirting better. You gone form insulting to complimentary. Well done, grasshopper. 

[alexava 6,972]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

“I don’t think people should be staying in locker rooms,” Trump told Fox News. “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing. You shouldn’t be there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.”

Is that an appropriate thing for the POTUS to say?

This a**hole mocked a Vietnam POW! Piss on him and every a**hole that is hypocritically kissing his fat belligerent ass. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Pulled this off FB:

 

I stand to honor the promise the flag represents.
You kneel because that promise has been broken.

I stand to affirm my belief that all are created equal, and to fight alongside you for that promise.
You kneel because too few stand with you.

I stand because we can be better.
You kneel to remind us to be better.

I stand to honor all that have fought and died so that we may be free.
You kneel because not all of us are.

I stand because I can.
You kneel for those who can't.

I stand to defend your right to kneel.
You kneel to defend my right to stand.

I stand because I love this country.
You kneel because you love it too.
written by: Andrew Freborg

[channonc 466]

19 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

I referred to Trump supporters because it was Trump supporters who cheered when Trump called NFL players sons of bitches. Let me know if I need to link Trump saying that. I’ve talked to several vets and it doesn’t anger them, my dad included. It wouldn’t bother me in the least if AU players did this to protest injustice to African Americans in our country. 

Don't forget VP Pence walking out of a Colts game when the players knelt.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

3 minutes ago, channonc said:

Don't forget VP Pence walking out of a Colts game when the players knelt.

And hardly anyone got enraged about that PR stunt that cost taxpayer dollars. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, channonc said:

Don't forget VP Pence walking out of a Colts game when the players knelt.

Good for him.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

6 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

@Proud Tiger This is why I said Trump supporters were appeased. Already we have a Trump supporter claiming NFL fines as a Trump victory. 

I guess all you Trump haters have short memories.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

14 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Good for him.

Not really.  He did it as a pure publicity stunt at the expense of tax payers.  That's simply a waste of money.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Not really.  He did it as a pure publicity stunt at the expense of tax payers.  That's simply a waste of money.

Not near as big a waste as the Mueller investigation into NO collusion.....now over $200M. Bunch of lawyers getting very rich.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

34 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I guess all you Trump haters have short memories.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

When I back up what I say with evidence, you change the subject. 

????

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

28 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Not near as big a waste as the Mueller investigation into NO collusion.....now over $200M. Bunch of lawyers getting very rich.

Bunch of indictments and guilty pleas too. Amazing considering it’s an alleged witch hunt. 

[HVAU 673]

22 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Bunch of indictments and guilty pleas too. Amazing considering it’s an alleged witch hunt. 

I don't know.  I think I'm catching the "no collusion" bug.  There was no collusion.

 

There was however conspiracy to defraud the United States aplenty:

"

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

 

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:

.....

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

....

The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government.

....

Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

....

In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:

[cited in USAM 9-42.001]

1. They cheat the government out of money or property;
2. They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
3. They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality."

 

So we're agreed, right?  From now on no it's not collusion.  It's conspiracy to defraud the United States.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

13 minutes ago, HVAU said:

I don't know.  I think I'm catching the "no collusion" bug.  There was no collusion.

 

There was however conspiracy to defraud the United States aplenty:

"

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

 

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:

.....

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

....

The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government.

....

Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

....

In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:

[cited in USAM 9-42.001]

1. They cheat the government out of money or property;
2. They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
3. They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality."

 

So we're agreed, right?  From now on no it's not collusion.  It's conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Agreed. 

[HVAU 673]

If we also liberally apply these statutes a case can begin the develop that jumps from mere conspiracy to conspiring with an enemy of the United States.

"Enemy of the United States Law and Legal Definition

According to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;

(3) the term "person" means

(A) any natural person;

(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and

(C) any organization, association, or group."

The Senate IC, the IC agency leaders and even Trump's current Secretary of State agree that Russia was actively engaged in an attack on our elections, one of the cornerstones of our government.  That places Russia in the category of enemy of the United States.  It also places those that were conspiring with Russia in a pretty precarious legal position.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Who has been convicted of anything?

[homersapien 11,347]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

Not near as big a waste as the Mueller investigation into NO collusion.....now over $200M. Bunch of lawyers getting very rich.

Presumably, you are referring to defense lawyers. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

When I back up what I say with evidence, you change the subject. 

????

 

LMAO. You just don't like the other side of the subject. But what the heck is the subject? I think the OP subject got lost a long time ago.

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

6 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

See in less than 24 hours I’ve got you flirting better. You gone form insulting to complimentary. Well done, grasshopper. 

Clearly

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

LMAO. You just don't like the other side of the subject. But what the heck is the subject? I think the OP subject got lost a long time ago.

LMAO. You can’t stick to the subject without a “but Obama.”

[augolf1716 21,093]

Well I blame Bush