Yes, you are a loser in the eyes of leftists, bigots, righties, inclusives, centrists, the intelligent, the educated, and the rational…there are many on the sift and in life, they all see you, loser.

I can deny he lied under oath, or at least that that has been proven…you have no evidence that he did, only the unreliable memory of a disgraced maga lawyer who suborned perjury before claiming so. Nothingburger Royal with cheese. Still would be a nothingburger if he went under oath and testified to his claims, but he won’t.
You think the accusation that he talked about being harassed means he absolutely didn’t talk about the payoff…because you have never talked about two things in one call?
This is not the gotcha you believe it is. Even if the disgraced ex lawyer speaking not under oath making this accusation was correct about the specific phone call, highly suspect but giving him the benefit of every sliver of doubt, his contention doesn’t even contradict the testimony that he spoke to Trump on that call, and even if it had (and again, it did not) this was one call among many others from 8 years ago he might be recalling happening at a slightly different hour on the same day during one of the dozen calls they had that day.
It doesn’t impeach his testimony in any way, nor any of the evidence Trump knew exactly what he was doing and knew this was criminal, evidence including texts from Trump and audio recordings of Trump discussing the crime.
If Cohen was making it up as you claim, he has plenty of other calls they can’t deny or explain away he could have said were about the details of hiding the secret payoff to hide sex with a porn star while married and dating a playboy model on the side, instead he testified honestly to the best of his recollection…which further enforces the idea he’s now being honest (has been since he left Trump’s employment).
Wait for re-direct. This minutiae will evaporate into pure warm zephyrum and you will still be grasping at straws…loser.

😂
Says the guy who STILL believes the NEXT (fake) whistleblower will have undeniable proof of Dark Brandon selling policy for cash despite the last 20+ completely disintegrating under examination.

The latest disaster being Devon Archer who was going to verify the Hunter Biden laptop and it’s contents, he didn’t, would testify to being present when Joe got on the phone to sell influence to Hunter’s business partners, he said it never once happened, and would bring audio recordings of Joe taking bribes, he didn’t know what they’re talking about.
Then they claimed the DOJ tried to hide him, tried to put him in prison before he could testify before congress, but every single court document proves they not only didn’t try that, they specifically noted his appointment to testify when they filed with the judge and insisted under no circumstances should he be incarcerated before he was finished, despite knowing he was not scheduled for incarceration yet, a process that takes months, so there was always absolutely no danger he might be unavailable anyway. Those documents are public.

You buy the dumbest, easily disproven nonsense. Such stupidity it usually looks like you’re playing the character of a brainless MAGA moron, like Colbert used to, because it’s just too stupid too consistently to be believed by even the most gullible person alive.

When is Hillary being arrested again? I forget. Wasn’t it coming for certain in 2017?

You are really entertaining Bob…along the lines of Archie Bunker…the worst of humanity, but entertaining to watch flounder.

Uh-oh. Case closed when your lawyer admits you did the crime on tv.

It bears noting that police admit they kill at least three citizens a day on average, but that doesn't include all the cases like this where they just lie about how the victims died, so the real number could easily be ten or more per day.

At three per day, their lowball number, that's 1 cop who dies in the line of duty from any cause for over 25 citizens they kill intentionally. The real number could be 1-100 or more.

These lying murderers deserve the death penalty, every one involved and every superior involved in the cover-up. Because prosecutors are on their team and will intentionally throw the cases and not prosecute in earnest, acting like defense attorneys instead of prosecutors, it may be up to private citizens to impose any penalties.
I would never convict a cop killer, it's a near certainty it would be in self defense. They're lucky I'm open and honest about that so can't serve on any jury.

Edit: audio recordings of officers reminiscing about beating and choking the ever loving shit out of him have recently been "found" after over a year of the force hiding all evidence and boldly lying that he died in the minor crash that ended the pursuit. Never take a cop's word about anything, they are all professional liars.

I did read that one, admittedly with reluctance because I've found the independent can be a lot more opinion than fact(ala msnbc/fox). The article mostly states Mr. Osborne accuses the gallery of many things, by far the worst is association with the website "Amerika" which I'm not familiar with, but unless it is so vile that even referencing it when discussing ideologies is 'bad' it didn't seem enough to make the gallery into witches, errr nazis.

For the Canadian incident, the full debate she showed a clip from is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

I'm afraid it's an hour long, but I don't know which 'clip' she would have been playing, although it was debate between Mattes and Peterson.

Lindsay Shepherd was the TA involved, this is the full audio recording of the meeting she was pulled into with 3 full staff and faculty to 'discuss' how her action of playing the video was wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nd32_uIcnI

Did you check out the summary of the video evidence posted by eric3579? Or in the nearly 2 hr one I linked skip to 1:11 and check out the interaction between the drummer and the kids.

The kids stay in their group, and the drummer and his followers wade right into them, with lots of room to go around. Phillips is on audio recording declaring that he did NOT feel that he was blocked from any closing ceremony, but that he wanted to go in and separate the kids from the black Israelites to 'descalate' the situation. Eric3579's video again has Phillips audio statement about what he was doing, listen to that and then watch the longer video for a minute or two at 1:11 when Phillips wades in. He's clearly lying, he went in aggressively pushing into the middle of the crowd of kids, hardly what any sane person wanting to deescalate the situation would do.

Of course rape can occur at any point leading up to and even during the act. If you have penetrated your partner and they say stop, you stop.

However, I would ask what other evidence could there possibly be? Obviously we can't know, but one would assume that a motivated prosecutor would have gathered all possible evidence. We know from the victim's statements that she can't recall much of the night, is unsure she said yay or nay during the sex, but that she didn't think he should have been prosecuted. Her roommates are the ones that reported the 'rape', but they clearly didn't give any evidence the court saw as worth convicting on. If their statements were what USC went by to expel him, that would be available via the court and I'm sure someone would have posted them.

We simply do not know and can only go by the video and the statement of the 'victim'. She seemed to be walking fine and signed her name correctly, so either she is an extremely functional drunk or she was sober enough to make those choices. She said she didn't think he should have been charged with rape. To me, that should exonerate the defendant. It did in a court of law, but not in a closed off Title IX hearing.

I suspect that what happened is what happens in other colleges. The college determines what is going to look worse publicity wise and litigation wise, then expels based on that. The problem is that in the Title IX process, there is no real fairness. You can have an advisor present, but not a lawyer if the school objects. One person decides your fate. There is no appeal process. The burden of proof is not defined as to who it is upon. I am sure that the lady in charge went by some procedure and not merely off personal opinion/belief, but we can't investigate to find that out.

To sum up, are we at the point where we should not have intimate relations if either person has imbibed any type of substance? Should we request that a video camera or audio recorder be present at any sexual liaison? Do we need witnesses like they used to have at the consummation of royal weddings? Perhaps a written contract? It just seems pretty ludicrous to me to have a video and the statement of the person that was supposed to have been raped, yet somehow we still had a punishment given to the individual accused of the raping.

I don't trust your video, not even a little bit.

I know you just dismissed opposing evidence earlier up thread, but here's a link to audio recordings and english transcripts the NSA captured and posted from Israeli helicopters in the area at the time. Again, I know you dismiss it, but they certainly were uncertain of what had just been hit/attacked.

https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/uss-liberty/recordings.shtml

Friendly fire is a fact of war, Canadians on a training mission in Afghanistan where killed by USAF runs despite their training operation and location being registered with the airforce. Fatal screw ups happen in war so it seems much less of a stretch to call this an accident than a deliberate scheme against an ally.

You go ahead and believe some video referring to the 'mockingbird media' and using literally 4-5 words of audio and leaving out all other communications though, I'm sure they left it out for brevity and not because it contradicts their narrative. That's something only the mockingbird media would do...

Or perhaps more briefly, provide a little better evidence before acting like this is as clear cut as our knowledge that the earth is round...

The only textual interpretation they should do is to understand the meanings behind the words.
(Like the subject at hand : what was the functional definition of the words "well regulated" in 1791.)

The act of deciding "well, they wrote X, but we think they would have written Y had they thought of these new circumstances, so we're going with what we think" is taking things too far. (eg. concepts like : surreptitious telephone wiretap law applying to overt public video/audio recording)

The legislature exists for a reason. Writing/Updating laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and legislate new laws that alter the scope/definition of old ones.


The problem with case law is that there is no Federal/State/Country/City LIS system where you can just search for whatever laws apply to whatever activities. You would need access to legal databases, like say LexisNexis. Even lawyers don't read case results directly to know what the decisions mean, they use summarizing services that outline the fallout of court decisions in terms of enforcible concepts. Ironically, these summaries are copyrighted, and the public at large is not allowed to know what those enforcible concepts are without paying.

IMO, I think eminent is easiest confused with emanating. Because the concepts behind them are so similar. One sticks-out-of, the other oozes-out-of. If you said that 'an eminent thing emanates from something', you would be so so close to literally correct.

-scheherazade

HOPE X just featured Ellsberg and Snowden, and it was better than ever. So keep an eye out for recordings of it, I should be able to provide a link by tomorrow morning.

Edit 07/20: audio recording

Ellsberg live at HOPE X right now, epic as always: http://radio.hope.net/feeds/

Edit: Snowden up in 10 minutes

Edit: Ellsberg brought out the big guns, serious dose of dignity and decency here. There better be a bloody recording available for download later.

Edit 07/20: audio recording

Note: in order to clear up some confusion expressed in the comments with regard to the sound on this clip, the stereo audio recording was made independently of the camera (which has poor sound) and later synched in post production. The 'percussion' sound that can be heard is not a hi-hat or a snare drum, it is possibly audio peaking, (unlikely), or something resonating inside the piano - most likely a broken string. The recorder was placed very close to the back of the instrument near the floor, and was therefore closer to the noise made by loose stuff rattling around inside. I only heard this on playback when I got home - didn't appear on the camera soundtrack.

Bring a camera into a dive bar and refuse to stop filming, you should expect trouble. I'm surprised the Google Glasses weren't destroyed.
Google glass records audio and video, so they should be illegal to use on private property, especially without notice, just like any other audio recorder.

I first heard Pete do this bit on his Podcast. It was an audio recording from the UCB theater in New York. He says it is an early version of the joke. Comparatively, the video version seems like he was going through the motion. The video also seems to be edited and the audience wasn't responding the same way. I'm not saying this was bad, it just wasn't as good as the UCB audio version. See for yourself, he plays the bit at the beginning of this podcast:

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/e/5/6/e568af5cf000d20d/YMIW11_Doug_Benson.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01c18731d5c859d1ae&c_id=4123069

If somehow there is a video of the UCB version, please let me know. I've Googled every word combination I could think of and this is the only video I could find.

>> ^spoco2:

Yeah, I'm not saying it isn't actually audio recorded live, but something in the way they've mixed it has robbed it of the live feeling almost entirely.


Pretty sure it's a soundboard recording, AKA the only good-sounding live stuff posted anywhere (unless you prefer a tin-can cell phone recording). The video (visual) is obviously mixed, because it was set up for a music video. And yes, Red Rocks has beautiful acoustics by itself.

*promote

Yeah, I'm not saying it isn't actually audio recorded live, but something in the way they've mixed it has robbed it of the live feeling almost entirely.