The real attack on Democracy.

[john12ax7]

I often disagree with AOC on policy, but still support her. We need more politicians like her with the gumption to call out the BS.

Www says:
"Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes (27 federal crimes and eight state crimes)"

It's pretty clear, even in the video, that you have an evasive witness not forthcoming with direct answers. She was trying to get him to name the actual crimes (out of the 35 possible ones). And people have a problem with that? The team politics blinders people have are quite staggering.

 

[jabe]

The team politics blinders people have are quite staggering.

Amen. It's not like I'm cheerleading the Democratic party. My Achilles heel is that I can't stand when spread folks insinuations as though they were proven facts, even as I realize that's the bait to generate a bunch of noise in hopes of creating the impression "both sides equally baaad" amongst those not paying enough attention or emotionally invested in both-siderism - because the alternative is to let the deceptions stand completely unchallenged. Which is of course also the point of non-sequitirs like "by the way diversity bad" comments: more noise and distraction. Sigh...

 

[JohnRoberts]

I often disagree with AOC on policy, but still support her. We need more politicians like her with the gumption to call out the BS.

sadly there is a bunch like her (8?), they call themselves the "squad"

Www says:
"Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes (27 federal crimes and eight state crimes)"

yes, that is accurate.

It's pretty clear, even in the video, that you have an evasive witness not forthcoming with direct answers.

Um not in the video I watched.. He listed three (?) crimes during her interruptions.

She was trying to get him to name the actual crimes (out of the 35 possible ones). And people have a problem with that? The team politics blinders people have are quite staggering.

You made me go back and rewatch it...(did I mention I hate videos?).
He answered Corruption statutes, Rico, and conspiracy (may be same thing?), fara (foreign agent registration something?), he tried to share those crimes twice in the video but she kept talking over him while he was trying to answer, then she made the dumb___ claim that "rico is not a crime". Then she reclaimed "her" time, because it became obvious she was not going to get the sound bite she wanted. He answered her twice by my count, but she did not listen.

Funny that we can watch the exact same video and see two different movies playing.... that's the nature of modern politics.
======
It may be worth sharing that most reps are not honestly looking for serious answers in the public hearings. That serious questioning happens in the closed door sessions. The public hearings are all about fishing for sound bites that they can use in political campaign ads. The drama that was supposed to happen during that hearing was contrasting Hunter's testimony directly to Bobulinski's. One of them lied under oath, and it was most likely Hunter.

Oops I think AOC will find herself in multiple republican ads for that "rico is not crime" blunder .

JR

 

[crazydoc]

RICO is an act, tying together crimes.

The power of RICO lies in its conspiracy provision, based on an enterprise rationale, that allows tying together apparently unrelated crimes with a common objective into a prosecutable pattern of racketeering.

AOC wanted to know which specific crimes he had witnessed, which he was unable to give.

Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes (27 federal crimes and eight state crimes) within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise."

 

[Matador]

Is Bobulinski a lawyer?

This is the GOP's credible witness?

Though the truth involving the deep corruption of the Biden family - including the malfeasance of the sitting President of the United States...A false one being pushed by Joe Biden, a serial liar... his brother Jim Biden, a 75 year old man who cannot keep his lies straight, including under oath; and his son Hunter Biden, a chronic drug addict facing two indictments with twelve counts...

 

[john12ax7]

Funny that we can watch the exact same video and see two different movies playing.... that's the nature of modern politics.

I would argue there are 3 movies going on. An objective lens, a fox news lens, and a msnbc lens.

As with circuits, it's useful to invert. Keep the facts and plot the same, but flip the R and D for the people. Suppose Ted Cruz was trying to get a straight answer from a shifty democrat lawyer, Bill Clinton perhaps. Would your opinion of the video change? If so you are not using the objective lens.

 

[hodad]

You refuse to question your own position and then want to preach to others who have (and subsequently reassesed their outlook)

First: You have no idea whether jabe (or Matador, or I) has questioned his own position. I would wager that all of us have. It's a funny thing, but people who are left-leaning tend to be very open to doubt, and they're typically pretty open to considering an outlook counter to their own.

Second: I suspect that many of those who followed Jim Jones to Guyana questioned their own positions and subsequently reassessed their outlook. I'm not questioning your questioning (so to speak), but that doesn't mean your "reassessed' outlook is more enlightened than what preceded it.

It was a nice exercise in self-aggrandizing folderol, though.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

First: You have no idea whether jabe (or Matador, or I) has questioned his own position.

Based on statements made here I see no evidence of any meaningful change of viewpoint. Were you all conservative as children and changed into "liberals" (not classical liberals apparently) as adults?

I would wager that all of us have.

Not seeing any evidence.

It's a funny thing, but people who are left-leaning tend to be very open to doubt, and they're typically pretty open to considering an outlook counter to their own.

When I was younger and left-leaning much like all of you, I had the same biased and incorrect view of people who I saw as like-minded. Having spent 29 years in CA surrounded by an increasing majority of such people, I have a lot of "lived experience" with that myopia. For a time my own apathy/ignorance/ego led me to be a part of it. Sometime around 2010 I began to see the flawed thinking, the arrogance, and the ignorance for what it was. I still see the flaws of neocons and weak appeasers on the right, but by and large, the left has delaminated from any pragmatism or rational view of the founding principles. I will have no part of it.

Your turn.

Second: I suspect that many of those who followed Jim Jones to Guyana questioned their own positions and subsequently reassessed their outlook.

Really? That's your arrogance talking. Look in the mirror.

I'm not questioning your questioning (so to speak),

Sure you are.

but that doesn't mean your "reassessed' outlook is more enlightened than what preceded it.

Your opinion of it doesn't matter because you haven't really questioned your own beliefs in any way that changed your outlook in any meaningful way.

It was a nice exercise in self-aggrandizing folderol, though.

And your response is what? Knee-jerk ad hominem? Projection? Narcissistic bombast? Whatever.

 

[Matador]

I'm not questioning your questioning (so to speak), but that doesn't mean your "reassessed' outlook is more enlightened than what preceded it.

You have your answer, Hodad. The Brewerati have spoken, and found your explanation unworthy of Their consideration.

 

[fallout]

 

[Matador]

 

[hodad]

Your opinion of it doesn't matter because you haven't really questioned your own beliefs in any way that changed your outlook in any meaningful way.

I see. Unlike John Roberts, you indeed are a mind reader.

Not seeing any evidence.

Not paying much attention. Too wrapped up in own ego trip.

 

[JohnRoberts]

RICO is an act, tying together crimes.

The power of RICO lies in its conspiracy provision, based on an enterprise rationale, that allows tying together apparently unrelated crimes with a common objective into a prosecutable pattern of racketeering.

Yup I recall when RICO laws (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) were crafted (back in the 70s) to clean up mobsters (racketeers)..

AOC wanted to know which specific crimes he had witnessed, which he was unable to give.

He was not allowed to answer by AOC... She kept interrupting him and talking over him while he tried to answer.

Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes (27 federal crimes and eight state crimes) within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise."

I am not going to litigate President Biden wrt RICO, while coincidentally ex President Trump is being charged under RICO in GA. I don't know if the GA RICO statutes vary from the federal laws.
===

Is Bobulinski a lawyer?

No not as far as I know... He pretty much shared his CV in his opening statement that I already shared.

This is the GOP's credible witness?

Since he was a business partner with Hunter, he was important for this recent public hearing to provide counter point to Hunter's testimony. But Hunter did not show up, so that line of questioning did not happen.
===

I would argue there are 3 movies going on. An objective lens, a fox news lens, and a msnbc lens.

Two are one too many. I have biases from my life experience.... Hey you kids get off my yard.

As with circuits, it's useful to invert. Keep the facts and plot the same, but flip the R and D for the people. Suppose Ted Cruz was trying to get a straight answer from a shifty democrat lawyer, Bill Clinton perhaps. Would your opinion of the video change? If so you are not using the objective lens.

Sadly I remember all too well when Hillary Clinton (a lawyer) was questioned about Benghazi... She was very skillful at finessing responses to avoid answering direct questions and admitting to anything incriminating on the record.

JR

 

[Matador]

But Hunter did not show up, so that line of questioning did not happen.

Yes, they scheduled on a day where he said he was already set to appear in court for his tax case. Knowing he wouldn't show up, it gave a free news cycle of, "See? Hunter is dodging questioning again!" (which appears to have worked).

 

[hodad]

I don't know if the GA RICO statutes vary from the federal laws.

I do. Georgia's RICO is a bit more wide-ranging and inclusive. I can't remember all the details, but the gist of it is that you can charge more stuff under Georgia's RICO than the fed law.

EDIT:
Georgia’s RICO law defines racketeering more broadly than the federal statute. It also allows a DA to introduce evidence that, without racketeering charges, would not stand on its own as individual crimes. Not only that, but prosecutors can use crimes committed outside of Georgia to prove a wider conspiracy.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/what-to-know-about-georgias-rico-law/3Y2PBKLHWFDMLKYFEURTHLBVZY/

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes, they scheduled on a day where he said he was already set to appear in court for his tax case. Knowing he wouldn't show up, it gave a free news cycle of, "See? Hunter is dodging questioning again!" (which appears to have worked).

A federal judge on Thursday set a June trial date for Hunter Biden after the president’s son pleaded not guilty to nine tax-related charges in a Los Angeles courtroom.

“I’m kind of keeping you on a tight schedule,” Judge Mark Scarsi said. “We like to move things along.”

The trial is set to begin on June 20, 2024.

A federal judge on Thursday set a June trial date for Hunter Biden after the president’s son pleaded not guilty to nine tax-related charges in a Los Angeles courtroom.

“I’m kind of keeping you on a tight schedule,” Judge Mark Scarsi said. “We like to move things along.”

The trial is set to begin on June 20, 2024.

The younger Biden’s decision not to appear as one of four invited witnesses before the Oversight and Accountability Committee on Wednesday was conveyed last week by his lawyer, Abbe Lowell.


Lowell informed the panel’s chairman, James Comer, that his client had a court date the next day in California, but also fired a broadside at the investigation itself: “Your blatant planned-for-media event is not a proper proceeding but an obvious attempt to throw a Hail Mary pass after the game has ended.”

A federal judge has scheduled Hunter Biden’s trial to start June 3 in Delaware on three charges of lying about having an addiction to drugs when he bought a gun in 2018 − two weeks before a second trial on tax charges is set in California.

That's why Abbe Lowell makes the big bucks, but the only court dates I found for Hunter are months later (June, 3 or June 20) not the next day.

JR

PS: I could have looked up the GA state RICO statues if I cared. I hear that AOC doesn't think RICO is a crime. Fani Willis has been putting on quite an entertaining show. I'm not sure that first act is over yet.

 

[Tubetec]

As you all will no doubt have heard by now Irelands prime minister has tendered his resignation , but theres no real explanation why . It seems clear his mind was made up for him on his recent St Patricks day trip to the US .

Now for the second time in recent history , a small upper echelon section of one political party , members of the Oireachtas ,get to vote on Varadkars successor , who will then be installed as Prime minister basically with no mandate whatsoever from the from the public .
If there had been an election and the public had their say ,Mr Varadkar would probably have struggled to even get elected and the party he leads would have ended up in opposition .
But now instead this tries to kick an election down the road and installs new puppet in the top job .
This is not democratic .....

On the coat tails of Mr Varadkars resignation , Sean Spicer was interviewed on a local news channel ,

https://www.newstalk.com/news/irela...use-visit-to-lecture-the-us-on-policy-1709048

End of the day Mr Varadkar did voice the Irish peoples strong opposition to whats going on in Israel and Palestine , but he soon realised it wasnt enough to pull his public approval rating out of the doldrums and obviously incurred the wrath of the gods in the process .

He also recently put a constituional referendum to the people which was voted down by 3/4 of the electorate , a monumental misjudgement .

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I see. Unlike John Roberts, you indeed are a mind reader.

I'm a pretty keen observer.

Not paying much attention. Too wrapped up in own ego trip.

Provide some evidence instead of attacking and denying. I have.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Your mentor, Alinsky, would be so proud to see this.

 

[hodad]

Provide some evidence instead of attacking and denying. I have.

I think you're providing all the evidence for me. How many excuses can you find for Trump's fraud? First it's the A/C vents, then it's subjectivity of real estate valuations. Then it's the uniqueness of his (extraordinarily tacky) apartment. You just jump from one lousy rationalization to the next as you consistently get shown why they're all crap. At what point do you actually open your eyes & say, "This doesn't look good?" Have you once done as john12ax7 suggested & flip the script. Would you be cool with this if it was Bill Clinton, or AOC, or George Soros?

I'm a pretty keen observer.

I don't really think so. Beyond the issue that you're theorizing about my state of mind based on what little you read here, I actually have written here before about doubting your fundamental beliefs, and about looking at the arguments of the folks you disagree with. Radically altering your beliefs does not necessarily mean your self-examination led to greater wisdom, and not radically altering your beliefs does not mean you failed to question them. Sometimes folks question their beliefs and find their faith strengthened. Sometimes the changes are subtle and gradual. And honestly, if the questions you asked yourself are as weak as the questions you ask here, I'm not so confident I'd have much regard for your answers.