Lock Them Up
Join LibraryThing to post.
Michael Flynn to plead guilty to lying to FBI: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html?_r=0
So, plea agreement for a lesser charge? The dominoes start falling?
"A plea deal with Mr. Flynn brings Mr. Mueller’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s inner circle. A plea agreement suggests that Mr. Flynn provided information to prosecutors, which may help advance the inquiry."
Lying to the FBI carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Lock him up!
Do watch this.
Women demonstrating that, when it comes to being creeps, men have nothing special on women.
These women don't know _shit_ about what they're presuming to pontificate about.
Joy Behar: "Oh moy Gawhd! Oh! Bweaking news! ...
A viewer of the youtube video comments:
Flynn will now face a court's sentence for having answered less than fully truthfully to questions concerning acts which, themselves, were neither illegal nor even cause for concern. Since he made a plea bargain, contrary to the glee with which the maximum sentence is announced above, Flynn, in all likelihood, will serve nothing like five years and may not serve any time actually confined to prison. Further, in contrast to the wishful-thinking-driven views of the likes of "The View" 's cast, Flynn's cooperation and plea bargain are not proof that Flynn can implicate other present or former officials of the Trump administration. Comey's F.B.I. handed out offeres of immunity to Hillary Clinton's staff without getting anything in return promised--no testimony, not even any particular cooperation.
Those who are not leaping on the news to celebrate the prospects of Flynn's sentence running into years understand that, at this point, we don't know whether he'll be sentenced to serve a prison term or placed on probation, etc.
And one needn't be a fan, a partisan or even sympathetic to or sorry for Flynn in his plight in order to recognize that the communications with the Russians, neither per se, nor, in their content or purposes, violate any law--none of which I'm aware.
And is there any doubt that, were this not the case and it was a crime to arrange meetings with Russians, Sturlington and other Trump critics would be shouting it from the roof-tops?
So, no, the acts about which Flynn mislead the federal agents about in his replies were, it seems clear, legal and had he not attempted--for some weird reason--to disguise or misstate his part in them, he wouldn't be in this spot today.
To make such political hay of this affair strikes me as revelatory--as though we need any such revelation--of certain people's approach.
"Retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn has promised “full cooperation” in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and, according to a confidant, is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria."
"Michael Flynn’s plea on Friday to a single count of lying to the F.B.I. is a seismic event in the special counsel investigation.
For starters, it portends the likelihood of impeachable charges being brought against the president of the United States. Mr. Flynn, a former national security adviser, acknowledged that he was cooperating with the investigation. His testimony could bring into the light a scandal of historic proportions in which the not-yet-installed Trump administration, including Donald Trump personally, sought to subvert American foreign policy before taking office.
The repercussions of the plea will be months in the making, but it’s not an exaggeration to say that the events to which Mr. Flynn has agreed to testify will take their place in the history books alongside the Watergate and Iran-contra scandals."
>2 proximity1: - It really adds to the strength of your argument to mock her accent.
"Michael Flynn’s plea on Friday to a single count of lying to the F.B.I. is a seismic event in the special counsel investigation."
It's more important than some realize. It's a single count. But that means that Mueller and his team probably have many, many charges in their back pockets just in case someone foolishly decides to preemptively pardon Flynn. This is almost a throwaway charge, and any pardons will result in a more serious charge being brought against Flynn. How many times will a pardon be trotted out?
I would think Trump and at least some members of his inner circle are worried. Flynn is looking at prison time and his display of contriteness and this talk of his cooperation--and cooperating will likely reduce his prison time or they can put him in a nicer place. No one in prison likes a rat though. There is that---you know what?---I think he's going make other dominoes fall. We'll see.
That remains to be seen--and your claim points up the wild "The View"-style loopy-feminist-wishful-thinking reasoning you're indulging.
Really? The mere fact that Mueller brings one and only one count against Flynn "means that Mueller and his team probably have many, many charges in their back pockets"
Why is there any probable connection between these? You claim this but it's sheer speculation without a shred of logical basis. It could as easily "mean" that Mueller and his team no other charges in their back pockets --thus, they brought forth all they had.
As Gerald Ford demonstrated, a president can pre-emptively pardon en bloc using an "any and all ... that were or may have been committed."
Actually, in any number of others, I like that and various other NY accents. In her, because of her own other personality traits, this accent produced in me the very opposite of the usual particular pleasure I take in hearing an example of it.
I ridicule her breathless excitement both in handling this phony "brwaking nooze"---and I blame the program's producers and the network just as much for having seen fit to handle it in such a pandering way--- and her digusting glee all done without reflection--for she took no time for any. This item did not deserve any of that. Nothing about it was urgent or even very important. A respectable television news organization would have produced this news in due course. Its reader would never have read it for the very first time, live, on-air and immediately leapt into pathetic celebratory mode, inviting a studio audience to cheer.
Recent Jonathan Pie :
"Jumping to conclusions makes us (i.e. 'journalists') look like fucking idiots."
One observation: Mueller has lots of unfiled charges. It Trump pardons Flynn for lying, Mueller can simply charge him with another. How many in a sequence of pardons would Congress / people stomach?
#11--Flynn is in the net. He ain't getting pardoned. He's like the christmas turkey that needs to convince the cook that he/she would rather have ham. No doubt that Mueller has other and worse things to charge him with if he wants too. There's been a deal done for a lighter sentence and Flynn's job is to deliver on his end to get it. What that end exactly is is the question but one would think there's much bigger game they have in their sights.
>12 lriley: There's also been some talk that part of that deal was letting off Flynn Jr. Could be another thing they're holding over Flynn.
NYT has a helpful timeline of events: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/14/us/politics/flynn-call-russia-timeline.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
I think Trump's buddy Joe from Maricopa County is into shocking pink which I would think would go best with Donald's complexion.
FWIW this process probably still has a ways to go. To recap:
Both Michael Flynn and George Papadopolous have now pled guilty to almost probably lesser charges (though still felonies) so as to get more favorable treatment in exchange for information on other criminal malefactors including most probably Paul Manafort and Rick Gates + other people associated with Trump and his transition team, cabinet members and maybe even the Vice President and very probably Trump himself. Jared Kushner seems to have a bullseye target on his back. Well....WTF! This might still take a while to sort itself out.....and the thing is I'm not sure I completely trust the FBI--that they won't work out some kind of deal with the Trump administration to let the really important people like Trump himself off the hook. Time will tell but for me the Donald would look his best in pink.
All I can say is, whatever comes out as a result of this had better be good. If these bastards get taken down for real crimes, great. But I do think it's important to remember how we got here:
Special to Barney67
Barney, you spend great effort here taking liberals to task for their failings and sometimes your critiques are largely if not entirely justified, warranted.
But consider what the following says about “liberals” here:
What's being urged--by implication--here would constitute the rank politicization of a special-prosecutor's powers. A calculated, “drip, drip, drip," release of already-prepared charges—assuming there are such and no one here has any idea that there actually are these. And that's just what the special-prosecutor role was created and intended to avoid—a politically-corrupt abuse of the aims and purposes of a criminal investigation, especially where high-ranking officials are suspects. Special-prosecutors are not supposed to be driven by partisan desires, not supposed to use their powers to “get someone who is targeted as a political opponent,” to “get even,” to “settle political scores.” But that's the sentiment with which those comments ( in >7 MsMixte: and >11 margd: ) reek.
That's a position which ought to be anathema to any self-respecting political liberal. And yet, not a single one of them has bothered to denounce this. Some fucking “liberals” we have here. Thus, when it comes to the participants in these threads, you're simply not really addressing people who really are consistent defenders of liberal principles —outside a few rare exceptions-- as indicated by their having denounced the illiberal aspect of championing a flagrantly partisan and vindictive use of a special-prosecutor's role. And if one doesn't defend a principle consistently, letting the chips fall where they may--one doesn't really respect that principle. If the principles one takes or leaves as it may convenient are liberal principles, then one is a phony liberal, a hypocrite--just as you have at times pointed out here.
Where are such liberals? They're not in these threads.
The following is an example of a conscientious liberal's sentiments:
"The Scalp-Taking of Gen. Flynn"
December 1, 2017
Bravo for linking to that!
The bullshit "liberals" here--mainly hatred-steeped "feminists"--didn't understand this at all and care even less about it.
Apparently inmates have no access to Twitter in Federal Bureau of Prisons, and emails are monitored.
#20--Pertaining to your comment about the implications--Mueller is investigating this as a conspiracy (or like a RICO) investigation which is something that the FBI has used as a tool for decades for instance with organized crime--which by the way the usual is to turn a few soldiers and/or capo's (after 'implicating' them in activities and plots) working your way upwards to get to the big fish (and Trump is kind of the whale at the tippy top) with the object of bringing the targeted structure down. Trump's buddy Rudy Giuliani by the way made his bones prosecuting such cases.
On the question of fairness.....if there is anything fair about our criminal justice system I'm not aware of it. Usually wealthy, politically powerful entities can buy justice off--get away with their crimes. Litigate ad infinitum and bribe their way out of whatever. At worst a fall guy can be found. The occasions usually when they can't is when said crimes are exposed to the public eye in a media firestorm such as is the case now and was the case during Watergate.
For now it's a good show.....considering what the Trump administration has been up to with the 'Tax relief bill' which pretty much amounts to economic warfare on 99% of our country's population I have no problem with it even if some of the charges are overblown or the same kinds of shit previous administrations engaged (but weren't supposed to) in and got away with.
Okay, then. There we have it from a fellow who is pleased to think of himself as a liberal:
"if there is anything fair about our criminal justice system I'm not aware of it."
So you in effect forfeit any claim to an interest in fairness as a guide to practicing justice, is that it? Why else raise this (false) observation that, in effect, there's nothing fair about the justice system anyway so objections to a failure of fairness are vain and useless. If your comment has any "point," it's just that: Never mind about fairness, we don't have any of it in our justice system anyway.
That, by the way, is BULLSHIT and, even if it were true, that would not be a valid reason for doing nothing to make an unfair system fairer. But you appeal to this BULLSHIT in exactly that vein.
Our system holds that the accused may not be made a witness against himself--his testimony may not be forced. That means the police powers are obliged to find and assemble the evidence of incriminating facts without the forced (or tricked) aid of the accused. That's a bed-rock principle of fairness and a cornerstone of any respectable judicial system.
Liberals are not free to blithely shrug off a failure of fairness in the application of principles of justice--their being genuine liberals precludes that "easy 'out'."
Other principles of fair judicial practice? Re-read the goddamn "Bill of Rights' 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments!
It's interesting what this line of argument suggests-- those who hate Trump are free to take a 'no-holds-barred' approach to "getting him". They needn't respect law, justice, principles of fairness in the process because, for them, the ends justify the means. That's not a rationale open to liberals. It stinks and the people who would take refuge in it when challenged--calling themselves liberals at the same time--they stink, too.
By the way, this open admission that there is no point in making an issue of fairness since our justice system doesn't have any leaves Trump free to do the same. Why shouldn't he now do as Nixon tried to do and turn the Justice Department into his personal vengeance squad?--get Hillary and get her good--hang her out to dry. The irony is that that objective is entirely feasible without making a travesty of the principles of fair justice under the system of law because the F.B.I.'s own investigation revealed copious evidence that she, unlike Trump, flagrantly violated serious felonies as defined in federal statutes.
Why so quiet here? Hmm, Sturlington? Nothing to say?
#24--first off I don't think of myself as a liberal at all. That's a convenient tag that people such as you like to use to denote those who don't agree with some of your points of view. This system whether speaking in terms of economics or justice puts the rich and the corporations on a pedestal well above the likes of me let alone those who happen to have less than I and multiplies its injustice factors according to race and gender amongst other things. So yeah I look at all that very fucking cynically. Is there any other way to look at something that's locked up to serve a small minority of oligarchs?--and you've heard the likes of Sanders and Corbyn railing against that haven't you?....or has it been so long that you've forgotten?
You want justice to work for the likes of Trump.....meanwhile you can continue along with your canard that justice really exists for all. And you know that fucking ass is an entitled sleaze bag who has pulled all kinds of shit during his lifetime. The other day I read this nonsense about how Hastert has suffered with his 18 months in prison---he deserves mercy. Any idea how many people are serving life sentences in this country for minor non-violent offenses construed as felonies? There's a lot. No mercy for them however--many of them come from poverty or they have the wrong skin tone. Let's have mercy for this scumbag who preyed on teenagers and rose all the way to Speaker of the House. Justice works? Right! Fuck off.
Yes, of course there is: justice for Trump, for Flynn, for the Clintons, the Obamas, for you and for me. Justice, yes, must be given to everyone; that it often isn't is really a poor excuse to surrender to your cynical view--and, indeed, you are very cynical. I see we can agree on something.
So, to be very clear: for you, it's all just about "getting Trump and getting him good"--that and nothing else. Justice and fairness don't come into it. So you renounce the right to demand justice of those who have, it's true, overwhelming power over us. In fact, they hold ALL the "cards" save one: the "card" of justice is not in their hand--the only card they devoutly covet but cannot have-- you throw it away with callous cynicism saying it's no good anyway.
So, indeed, you aren't a liberal--again, we can agree. You were for Stein again--why? Apparently not for any generally respectable principled reason since as you make clear, this is just every man for himself, just a fight of all against all. In that fight, the wealthy, who you so evidently regard as your opponents, are readily allied with their numerically-tiny minority of people with extreme wealth's common interests. But to fight them, you have no use for principles--so you forfeit whatever that might have gained you and, in fact, that's dream-come-true gift to your adversaries.
As things now stand, I don't see you holding any ground at all from which to lecture Barney67. He has a ready answer to whatever you might object-- it's your cynical answer, if he wants it: I don't give a fuck about that. I don't give a fuck if you get, you got, the short end of the stick as long as I don't get it, too. Take your Jill Stein and go off and fuck her. She's for humanitarian ideals, for justice and for a fair shake for those who least get one. So what? That does effectively "zip" for me so I'm voting Trump."
Against that, you have nothing. No principles, no principled argument, no moral claim, not even any moral ground. You flush all moral aspects down the shitter and get right to what is hard to distinguish from "might makes 'right' " All you can do is walk away.
So you're no liberal. Glad we got that very straight.
No wonder I want nothing to do with you; no wonder you're no ally of mine. In a contest, I want justice to prevail. I was entirely correct to see that that makes us adversaries. You do indeed well belong in league with the sexist bigots of feminism, defending their line, singing in their choir--but not from any principle. You have none.
Here's a stunning observation you might mull over: Compared to you, Trump is a man of principle, an optimist and an anti-cynic. That should give you pause if you are not yet irredeemably lost.
Having had several political discussions with Iriley and can attest to the fact that like my own non-liberal (far, far left of that) self, his views are based on humane notions such as economic justice.
'Here's a stunning observation you might mull over: Compared to you, Trump is a man of principle, an optimist and an anti-cynic.'
That is stunning for its utter depravity; it's bereft of context, truth and known human varieties of thought. It might be a wet fart into the front end of a cyclone, but that's the best I can say about it. I might mull it over to try to find out why someone is so bent, and so bent on defending Trump, so bent into despising women (content analysis).
Oh, and here's to Barney!
Just so it's clear-- those out to get Trump by any means, fair or foul, whatever the cost to justice and what that means for the rest of us--should read the following review of the F.B.I.-Flynn fiasco, In Trump-Russia probe, was it all about the Logan Act? by Byron York.
This is what you're signing on to--read the opinion article to get a clear idea of it because Flynn was essentially entrapped,--look up law-enforcement entrapment--led to recount in dizzying detail his acts and words when, in fact, the authorities did not need this information. They already had it from NSA surveillance tapes--those things Edward Snowden warned us would be used against us improperly. Yet nothing Flynn had done was illegal in itself. The feds didn't care about that. What they wanted was simply some variance between Flynn's replies to their questions and what they already had on tape.
If Flynn isn't safe, what makes you think you are?
A key question puzzles me: why did Flynn agree to any interview with federal law enforcement agents? Why would he answer their questions rather than simply say, "Excuse me, but I have nothing to say to you. If you are investigating me as a potential target of a criminal charge, I'll see you in court with my lawyer." End of story.
I also wonder whether Flynn's guilty-plea is irreversible at this point. In his place, if I could, I'd say, "I changed my mind: I'll see you in court. My plea is 'not guilty.'" Then, as part of his defense, he should show the F.B.I. engaged in entrapment.
For those who argue, "I don't care about any of that. Flynn is scum and fair or foul means are all good to bring him down. No favors for our enemies," then you deserve to see and feel all the 'blow-back' that shall come from this, for you are sowing the wind.
Mueller's investigations are proving to be a classic "fishing expedition". That, too, is what your approval signals you want to see happen more often.
I've said many times our system is broken--rotten, corrupt--and that the same system which gave us Bill Clinton also gave us George W. Bush, Barack Obama and now Trump. But, if the system is rotten, corrupt, it must also be that, when "push" comes to "shove," a lot of Americans are, too.
By applauding the entrapment of Flynn, you're effectively doubling-down on the rotten, corrupt system which, like anything you say to law enforcement officers, can be taken down in notes and used against you in a court of law--outside a court of law, all around the town. In this system, once you forfeit the principles of justice, don't expect to find safety anywhere--least of all in the legal system. And the powers-that-be are only too delighted to see the bar lowered yet another notch.
Maybe abject cynicsim actually carries a price and sometimes it can be both heavy and unjustly levied.
If we're talking about consistency I'm a hell of a lot closer to where I was two years ago than you are. Back then you were beating the drum for Bernie Sanders. These days you defend Donald Trump at every turn.
Is it that you don't see any big difference between the two? Because if you don't that's just plain laughable. Even Barney knows that much....or at least I think he does.
So then you're telling me how selfish I am. Okay. Truth is I can be pretty selfish sometimes. But here's the fucking thing--Bernie Sanders was for free health care and for everyone and I'm absolutely for the same. What do Donald and the conservatives think about that though? That's who you are siding with.
Bernie Sanders is for spreading the wealth around as I am--Donald Trump is a Robber Baron and his Tax Relief bill is all about robbing the poor to give to the already rich.
.....and when asked what the greatest single existentialist threat was Bernie Sanders unlike every other single democratic and republican candidate in 2016 said 'Climate Change'. The others all opting for the War on Terror and climate change by the way is effecting everyone even the terrorists and it's going to have greater and greater ramifications. Trump and his mickey mouse club of pseudo environmental actors are in absolute denial on anything at all to do with this problem to the point that every move they've made just ramps it up. But they see $'s and that's all that matters to them.
I'm for a lot of other things--like government guaranteed college educations. Like a guaranteed allotment for those past 18 not working. Like a living minimum wage starting at $15 and pegged to the CPI if inflation goes up. Like pulling our troops out of war zones and back home and closing foreign military bases. I'd be letting a lot of non-violent prisoners out of prison as well---maybe not people who ruin others financially but generally speaking our prison population would be going down a lot.
These are things by the way that lots of liberals don't want so why should I count myself among them? These are things that the guy you're defending tooth and nail and his party definitely are dead set against.
You're very confused.
"These are things by the way that lots of liberals don't want so why should I count myself among them? These are things that the guy you're defending tooth and nail and his party definitely are dead set against."
Let's start with what seems like perhaps an objection on your part to being classed with the "liberals" who you may in fact see as much, much too conventional and centrist for your use. Then know that in the above case as in so many others--but not absolutelywithout exception-- I use "liberal" and "leftist"--even the kind you identify yourself as being--use these as essentially synonyms. If it makes you feel better, in the above post, you could replace every usage of "liberal" with any version of "leftist" that most suits you.
""What do Donald and the conservatives think about that though? That's who you are siding with."
"Donald Trump is a Robber Baron and his Tax Relief bill is all about robbing the poor to give to the already rich. "
Secondly, Donald Trump is a fat-cat --and now a "Republican"--and what he's doing is completely in keeping with what we know of and expect from them. SO WHAT? What we ( (We "others") not referring to you) have to do is concern ourselves first with the take-over of the once-slightly-respectable Democratic party by truly a ugly and vicious neo-conservative band, the DLC, which leaves the entire electoral institutional apparatus the prisoner of a single narrow ideology--an ideology which has driven the steady elimination of a public-place commonweal and its replacement by an utterly privatized world which serves the top .01 % and leaves the rest of humanity in a life-or-death struggle amongst themselves ever since Ronald Reagan's electoral sweep scared the limp liberals into a strategy of trying to beat conservatives at their own game. This was Bill Clinton's gambit and that of practically every Democrat since.
"These days you defend Donald Trump at every turn."
I'm not "defending" Donald Trump or General Flynn--I'm defending OUR legal rights and liberties--or the tattered mess which constitutes what's left of them after feminists and others sell-out bedrock principles for vanity projects in identity politics and their sacrosanct "reproductive rights" for which illusory security they're ready to shit-can almost everything else which relates to in a general advance of the common-good irresptective of gender or "sexual orientation."
We won't have those rights if they're simply jettisoned whenever partisan convenience is served by getting the opposition's key-figures, great or small, by hook or by crook. There are no civic, public liberties which can be safely and exclusively preserved for "leftists" or right-wing reactionaries alone. That is because these inherently concern principles which, when defended and applied selectively, are made the objects of contempt. In such circumstances, all legal principles of justice suffer and, by that suffering, the ultimate goal--the general destruction of a just (or even "more just) and open society is served marvelously.
>24 proximity1: first off I don't think of myself as a liberal at all. That's a convenient tag that people such as you like to use to denote those who don't agree with some of your points of view
Well said. Such labels have simply become pejorative terms in the eyes of those who use them.
>28 RickHarsch: a wet fart into the front end of a cyclone
I love it. "A fart in a hurricane" is a common enough term, but a wet fart. And not just in a cyclone, but at the front end of said meteorological disturbance. Such attention to detail.
Deutsche Bank receives subpoena from Mueller on Trump accounts: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-deutsche-bank/deutsche-bank-receives-subpoena-from-mueller-on-trump-accounts-source-idUSKBN1DZ0XN
>34 sturlington: Here we go?
Robert Mueller Warned, “Stay out of President Trump’s Real Estate Business, or…”
Paul Ebeling | November 4, 2017
Attorney Jay Sekulow, a Key member of President Trump’s Legal Team involving the Russia probe was quoted saying they would challenge special counsel Robert Mueller if he steers the investigation into anything they consider “outside the scope” of the investigation, specifically into the President’s former business deals....
But, but, but, what about Bwian Woss, the suspwended chief investigative repworteh/corwespondent for ABC News ?
"No comment" from you ? LOL!
From: The Office of the Special Prosecutor
Subject: Purchase Order No. (see attached order paper)
The following articles shall be authorized for purchase by disbursement of funds from
the supplemental budget of the Department of Justice of the United States,
by order of the Special Prosecutor's office-manager:
Article .................................................................................................... Qty,
Suntan lotion /Sunscreen (grade PA+++ ) ............................ 10 cases,
LETHMIK Fishing Sun Boonie Hat
Summer UV Protection Cap Outdoor Hunting Hat ................... 20
HUMVEE Cotton Safari Vest with Extra Pockets .................... 20
AFTCO M01 "Original" Traditional Fishing Shorts ................... 20
(pairs) Red Frog Jungle Unisex Casual Crew
Socks Athletic Stockings Funny Designed .............................. 60
Oakley Men's Frogskins (a) Polarized Iridium
Rectangular Sunglasses .................................................. 20
Resuable Shoes Cover - Foldable Portable Waterproo
Motorcycle Bike Boot Shoes Cover ........................................ 20
"I Got Your Back" Stick-Figure Gift Idea Novelty
Sarcastic Graphic Funny T Shirt .............................................. 40
Red Plume Men's Compression Sport Tight
Cool Fashion Bat Running T Shirt .......................................... 40
Hanes Men's Short Sleeve Cooldri Tee ................................. 40
Monofilament Fishing Line Clear Super Smooth
Nylon Fishing Line Saltwater Freshwater,4lb-80lb .............. 100
Men's Quick Drying Aqua Water Shoes (pairs) ............... 60
MAD About Trump: A Brilliant Look at
Our Brainless President (MAD Magazine) ........................ 60
This order No. _____ of _______
Authorized Signature : ______________________
DOJ Comptroller No.______________
Unified Purchase Order Reference No. ___________
>36 proximity1: It requires at least borderline psychosis to conjure 'real' enemies on a forum such as this, but I have to think a great deal more to diagnose the post properly given the regressive mind displayed by the cartoon language taunting.
Let me give it some thought. Meantime, I would highly recommend to all NOT to make any personal information available to the author of that post. And I am serious. I am currently being stalked in the literary world, and lucky that the stalker is in your country and not mine, but there is an arbitrariness to the fixation, and of course there is fixation, that is similar in both cases that unnerves me.
I made an exception--really. An exception. I read post >38 RickHarsch: after having first ignored it several times.
I have been the subject of stalking in real-life, in real-time. It was actually a networked affair in an episode involving numerous complete strangers who apparently had nothing better to do than join a creepy little effort to make my life as miserable as possible for a while. I am not making this up and none of it is imagined. Of course, eventually it stopped for very practical reasons but while it went on it was fairly annoying.
Get this and get this really, really, really clear, you $&(/$£ little $%£ :
as much as I despise you, I do not EVER, FOR ANY reason, under ANY circumstances STALK others--not in any form or fashion, not figuratively, not virtually, not literally. I never have and I never shall. Even if someone dropped a complete dossier about you with every detail of your life in my hands, I wouldn't care to open it or look at the first page. It would go straight into a shredder--which is where your vile comment prompting this reply belongs.
I tell you this because, as one who edured the experience first-hand, I intend to relieve you of the concern (in case the apparent fear (which has prompted you to attempt to smear me) is sincerely-felt on your part--something which I cannot fully trust to be true but see that it just might be genuine) here EVEN THOUGH YOU, viciously attempting to smear me here with ugly innuendo which is false and vile, do not deserve the consideration I'm showing you by flatly denying the inneundo in your post, I present this anyway.
Now, I'm flagging your piece-of-shit post >38 RickHarsch: as what ought to be recognized as beyond the pale of the TOS. If you have a shred of fucking decency, you'll delete it, for there is NO BASIS for the vile shit you've posted.
I hope this is clear enough for you. Now I'm back to ignoring your idiotic fucking bullshit. You demonstrate without help from me why you deserve to be ignored. After scores if not hundreds of comments and replies, you demonstrate that you don't understand the first thing about me. You clearly are fucking useless when it comes to actually reading others. "Stalk you"?! I don't give the first fucking damn about you--&%%//.
Now, let's both delete these public posts*. (and you take a lesson from them.)
* Meanwhile, I'm saving a record in a private file of your gratuitously vicious post for my own reference.
Sturlington, continuing her sterling record of leaping on and passing on erroneous reporting, goes into extra-innings:
"Deutsche Bank receives subpoena from Mueller on Trump accounts"
LOL! Now I just read Sturlington to reassure myself about what isn't a fact.
More interesting reading here:
by Joseph Curl of The Daily Wire ; December 5, 2017 :
Sometimes, you can tell the big story of the day by what CNN is not covering — or by how the heavily biased network covers what they think is the big story.
"Trump's Russia defense in disarray," blared the CNN website headline on Tuesday morning.
So, clearly, the real story is just the opposite. Here's the real headline of the day: "Mueller Credibility Plunges, Trump Probe Imploding." Subhead: "Should he step down?"
Special prosecutor Robert Mueller was sold to America as an above-the-fray, non-partisan elder with the gravitas to handle investigating the President of the United States. As it turns out, Mueller has put together a pack of partisan lawyers, many of whom contributed campaign cash to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats; stonewalled demands from House lawmakers for information; and, most recently, secretly demoted a heavily biased FBI agent who's a hater of President Trump. ...
>39 proximity1: To be clear: I am not saying proximity1 is doing anything to ME. Rather he has fixations on a couple others that are disturbing to me in that there is some overlap to real circumstances that involve stalker-type behaviors.
I've flat-out denied having any part in anything to do with anyone or anything even remotely involved with "stalking" -- anyone, anywhere, at any time. That means that any goddamned fucking "over-lap to real circumstances" is either utterly coincidental and has nothing to do with me or it is your imagination at work.
You've reasserted the same innuendo directed at me, an attempt to smear me here, and merely indicated that what you imply concerns me in this "overlap to real circumstances that involve stalker-type behaviors" has to do with others you, again, trying to smear me, describe as "fixations on a couple of others" rather than you yourself-- though in your >38 RickHarsch: you wrote:
" I am currently being stalked in the literary world, and lucky that the stalker is in your country and not mine, but there is an arbitrariness to the fixation, and of course there is fixation, that is similar in both cases that unnerves me.".
As for these others--unidentified by you--I no more give the first fucking damn about them than I do about you. You're compounding your vicious and unfounded character-smearing attacks. And I'm flagging >41 RickHarsch:, too, and calling it and >38 RickHarsch: (ref. : http://www.librarything.com/topic/276601#6269531 ) to the attention of this site's management--as they recommend in such cases as this. Your >41 RickHarsch: and this reply are now copied and saved with >38 RickHarsch: for the record.
>42 proximity1: I find your behavior extremely disturbing, your fixation on specific people coupled with very personal attacks, reactions that are beyond the pale, an apparent hyper-sensitivity that leads to feelings of personal affront when others are merely arguing with you. I have witnessed similar behavior exhibited by a man who is stalking me (having no means to engage me personally he has sent messages of a sort to a publisher and a journalist). It's fixation that I find disturbing, fixation on persons rather than issues. If I have succeeded in encouraging you to expend energy in this direction and to any degree helped to discourage any amount of posting on your part, I believe I have at least done some small amount of good.
Self-serving open-pleading to the site administrators who may be reviewing these recent exchanges--sure. Why not? In your place, I'd probably try to sanitize what you've been doing here in something like the same way.
"Good luck" with that.
ETA : But I think you should spare us this stuff. Just as I did, make your case--such as you have--directly to the site's staff. Further back-and-forth on this from you (or from me) does not belong here. Please don't oblige me to reply to you again here on this. Save it for the site admin.
>45 RickHarsch: I will take my directives from myself. I believe I am failing to serve myself in insisting that your behaviour is very disturbing and that you exhibit an alarming psychological profile.
There's an open question:
which is the best course?
-- allow Robert Mueller to carry on with what is increasingly apparent as a botched and biased "investigation", the purpose and design of which is simply to contrive a case at law against Trump out of what appears to be no credible evidence of any criminal wrong-doing and in allowing him to carry on, finish the job of fully and definitively discrediting himself?
There are a number of things which argue in favor of that course. Mainly, allowing Mueller's inept and biased work to collapse on itself relieves Trump and those--whether they "like" Trump or not--who see him as the victim of a cynical law-enforcement effort at cheap rule-and-law-breaking, including entrapment--from the stigma, though there shouldn't be any, of "pro-actively" dismissing Mueller for being anything but an "Independent Prosecutor."
As argued in the editorial (linked just above) "The Mueller Firing Speech" (Editorial of The New York Sun | December 5, 2017) (... "drafted by The New York Sun, of remarks it would like to see President Trump deliver"), Trump's oath to protect and preserve the Constitution presents a rather strong case that he should feel little choice in the matter-- to faithfully execute the law and uphold the Constitution, there's no place for a Congress which attempts to shirk its constitutional responsibility by allowing the House, via an ill-conceived idea, to accept a Dept. of Justice-appointed Spec. Prosecutor, and one made under the worst of circumstances--ridiculous pressures which saw the Attorney General, Sessions, obliged to turn over authority to his junior associate like this appointment of Mueller, to by-pass the House duties.
No matter which course is taken, Americans are clearly bound to respond in a wholly-predictable partisan outrage. Because they've become trapped in an idiotic and irrational anti-Trump mass-hysteria.
To see it, it suffices to read this thread.
Thank you all for your participation in LibraryThing Talk.
Please remember to abide by LibraryThing's Terms of Service (http://www.librarything.com/privacy ). The terms allow members enormous latitude in what they can say. But they prohibit personal attacks on other members. They do not do so some times, but other times are okay; they always prohibit them. There are many ways of making your points without engaging in some of the comments I find above.
Please note I am not entering into any sort of fray, nor is Loranne who looked, but is too busy with SantaThing to get into it beyond agreeing that there are violations. I have not read all the comments above, nor am I minded to do so. Nor have I factored in anyones behavior over time, the social dynamics at play, what I or others might think or not think about a member, or any other contexts, real or imaginary. A TOS violation cannot justify another TOS violation either. Here and elsewhere, site administrators look at specific posts that get called out, and make a determination.
That call is: Inappropriate. Find another way talk to each other, or don't talk.
This is a general warning. Avoid further violations.
>47 timspalding: Good to see you taking an active stance on what's really important on LT.
>48 Collectorator: He was invited in order to investigate a complaint against my posts. So this is probably not where you wanted to carry out your ambush.
"Remember the terms"? Tim, with due respect for what is an unusual and laudable tolerance for free-expression on your part, this is pathetically vague:
your site's operating-procedures, which, through the user-'managed' "flag" feature, positively invite persistent and cliquish in-group bias**, combined with LT staff's demonstrated unwillingness or inability to give adequate time and attention to such problems as you and Loranne yourselves admit are present ( "Loranne who looked, but is too busy with SantaThing to get into it beyond agreeing that there are violations."), means that this kind of thing will inevitably recur. It is simply bound to.
Everyone at LT is "too busy to get into it." That's because, at this time of year, people are busy and you don't allow for either clear and enforceable rules on the matter concerned or the staff to deal with abuse and violations. That makes it easy for cleverly worded attacks on another person through factually-false and libelous innuendo to "crop up" at these busy times.
Instead of clarity, we habitually get what you post in #47-- vague, unspecific disastisfaction which does not indicate what was improper, why that is and who is responsible.
Your site has been up for years. I've participated for years and seen this kind of thing happen again and again. You simply have not taken matters up in a way which clarifies and leaves participants in a position to know before hand what is acceptable and what is not.
But, in this case, you could :
The following is what I am calling on you to formally and expressly forbid in comments at this site--
" The resort to innuendo* ("spurious innuendo") in comments with reference to another LT member which implies about that other member's character a criminally-liable fault, and which fault is not known by the person making the insinuation to be factually-accurate (true), is prohibited and shall not be tolerated; such a comment, unless removed by its original author upon any member's objection, will be reviewed and removed by a member of LT staff upon objection by the member who is the target of the innuendo; members who violate this prohibition are liable to be permanently banned from LT upon repeating the offense after any previous warning (after the date of this rule's adoption).
( when you admonish members here to "play nicely together" but still tolerate the above, you're not even doing the minimum.)
" * Definition of terms: "Innuendo" here means : "an indirect or subtle reference by means of insinuation, esp. one made maliciously or indicating criticism or disapproval in which there is the use of a groundless or ignorant reckless insinuation (about another person's character) without regard for fact. Further : An indirect (and usually malicious) implication which has no known basis in fact on the part of the person making it upon the character of another member which implies a behavior by the other member which is criminal: i.e., legally grounds for fine or imprisonment. Any comment of the kind just described which implies behavior on the part of another which, if true, would make that person liable to criminal prosecution for a felony or misdemeanor and which the person making the insinuation does not know to be factually true. It is not a defense to claim--even if true-- that the unfounded innuendo caused the other member no demonstrable material/monetary harm or loss. It is a positive defense to show that the member's own words, available in open posts at this site, indicate by their plain and usually accepted sense that the insinuated characteristic is factually based, supported by direct and unambiguous evidence from the member himself or herself."
Also, you and staff responsible for supervising members' fora comments would find much of value and interest in the parts relating to in-group bias and clique-formation in the following book:
** "The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms"
by Cristina Bicchieri
You simply have not taken matters up in a way which clarifies and leaves participants in a position to know before hand what is acceptable and what is not.
Nonsense. There are some clear attacks above. This was the warning. If someone attacks again here, or the offenders in question attack elsewhere, and are reported, they will face further action.
I: "I remain confused and in doubt after reading your replies."
"There are some clear attacks above."
But you've done nothing to indicate which in the "above" are the "clear attacks" and you've just dismissed my telling you that you've left things--kept things--vague, imprecise and unlcear even as you promise "the offenders"-- not specified!-- "will face further action" --not specified!-- "if someone"--not specified!-- "attacks"--not specified!--"again".
I'll tell you what is clear to me: You prefer to keep these matters vague. And I don't see that preference being one you cannot avoid.
Thus, members' confusion concerning acceptable practice in the fora comments will be punished--or not. It depends, really. We're busy. Members' comments are not very important--they're not a "profit-center" for us. It's too bad that we need them as an adjunct to what is a profit-center--the essential data our members add to the site while they-- or some of them -- also participate in rambunctious chat. If only we could secure the former without the headaches and annoyances! (read: costs to our time and attention away from profit-center work)
You prefer to keep these matters vague
Yes, I do. I discovered long ago that the first warning should be vague and general. Everyone paying close attention knows what's going on, but naming names rubs peoples nose in it. Not doing so creates a level of plausible deniability. Nobody's name is up there in lights forever. It makes it easier for people to accept a reprimand without turning the reprimand itself into another occasion for misbehavior.
>54 RickHarsch: If I remember right, I think I was 'punished' at least once. I know I have gotten to step two more than once, getting a direct reprimand. In every case I was guilty. The policy combined with the way it is wielded allows for maximum sensible freedom, including the freedom to fuck up repeatedly. It allows for the likelihood that in a testy forum people will cross the bounds of the TOS, which is a guideline and not a law. It allows even allows for lunacy, protects lunacy. Many here should be very pleased with the process.
FWIW, Loranne and I have started a register of warnings. Previously we had to rely on searching out profile comments and memory. So we have a better handle on it now.
>55 timspalding: On the other hand I think warnings should be forgotten and gone after a relatively short period, so maybe the memory-based system was not so bad.
>56 bnielsen: My assumption is that as a worker at LT the less time spent on such trivia the better. I agree warning should be forgotten and gone after a relatively short period, but I remember that some years ago I was referred to some toxic stuff that happened before I arrived, so maybe knowing how bad it can get there need be some fall back option. I hope there is no need for a TOS violation algorithm.
You can use whatever metrics you like. But I think you're kidding yourself to suppose that you can instill or promote a member-adopted mutual respect and a sense of responsibility through the deliberate resort to vague and shifting "rules" and their inconsistent application. At the very least, efficacy aside, this is not exactly a fair approach as it expects members to guess at the meanings and intended applications of only vaguely-described rules and get these right most or all of the time ( "This terrain is a mine-field. Warning! : Do not step on mines!" ). For those who participate little or not at all in fora discussion, that's an easy bar to clear. For those who are active and post comments which spring from passionately-held opinions, it's a rather difficult bar to clear.
Clarity comes from a sincere best-effort attempt to write rules clearly-- setting out what is permitted and what is not permitted and providing a few examples.
( Caveat: Beware Buzz-words : " Emergent Norm Theory (ENT)" )
Volume 23, Issue 3, July 2001, Pages 167-189
"Norm formation in social influence networks" ☆
Volume 23, Issue 3, July 2001, Pages 167-189
"The Emergence of Conventions in Online Social Networks"
Farshad Kooti / MPI-SWS;
Haeryun Yang / KAIST;
Meeyoung Cha / KAIST;
Krishna P. Gummadi / MPI-SWS;
Winter A. Mason / Stevens Institue of Technology
"The spread of innovations in social networks"
Andrea Montanaria and Amin Saberib,
Department of Electrical Engineering and Department of Statistics,
b Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305
Edited* by Brian Skyrms, University of California, Irvine, CA, and approved August 19, 2010 (received for review March 27, 2010)
"Emergence of communities and diversity in social networks"
Xiao Hana, Shinan Caob, Zhesi Shena, Boyu Zhangc,1, Wen-Xu Wanga,d,1, Ross Cressmane, and H. Eugene Stanleyf,1
"A Study of Emergent Norm Formation in Online Crowds"
Emergent Research Forum papers
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Gert-Jan de Vreede
University of Nebraska at Omaha
>58 proximity1: Why don't you simply lighten up, man? None of this really means that much in the scheme of things, I am sure of it, not to me, not to you, not to anyone but whoever makes a living off it. And even those don't care too deeply about what we're all saying. You're a smart enough guy, just take it easy and the conversation will flow, perhaps some of it pleasantly.
Yeah, no, I agree it should fade. But it's useful to have a record. Also, because Loranne and I both do this, and sometimes Kristi, and we need to coordinate better.
Right. No, I hope we never need that. I'd like to grow LibraryThing in such a way that we actually have some staff do stuff, as opposed to the almost exclusively algorithm way that many other such services work.
Thanks for the reading. Cool stuff.
RH : I'm never under any circumstances reading another post from you. You write, do, whatever the fuck you please. I refuse to ever look at another of your posts. You can carry on using libelous language against me and I won't know or care.
Tim : That's your methods and tactics at work. "You're welcome."
>60 timspalding: RE coordinating with colleagues over this stuff--if my name is involved please just ask if I'm being an asshole again, I'll admit it and the whole thing can vanish rapidly, even if a need a perp walk.
In an op-ed, the founders of Fusion GPS ask Congress to release twenty-one hours of testimony on the Steele Dossier: “We don’t believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling. As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp. The intelligence committees have known for months that credible allegations of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia were pouring in from independent sources during the campaign. Yet lawmakers in the thrall of the president continue to wage a cynical campaign to portray us as the unwitting victims of Kremlin disinformation.” NYT
Trump Tower meeting with Russians 'treasonous', Bannon says in explosive book
Fire and Fury by Michael Wolff is likely to be a bestseller. Hitting the stands next week.
Wolff's Wikipedia page holds some criticisms of his facts and slant in previous writings. This should be interesting.
While Bannon decries the stupidity and possible treason of Trump Tower meeting, he's still evil. He advises how to have done it with plausible deniability: "...if any such meeting had to take place, it should have been set up 'in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet with these people'. Any information, he said, could then be 'dumped ... down to Breitbart or something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate" (!) "publication.' You never see it, you never know it, because you don't need to ..."
Wonder if attacks on Kushner and Trump Jr in new book is what triggered Trump tweetstorm as diversionary tactic?
Chris Christie also took recent swipe at nemesis Kushner.
Can Congressional Republicans be far behind, I wonder?
Aaand - Wolff has a very long article today in the New York Magazine:
Donald Trump Didn’t Want to Be President
White House response:
Trump says Bannon ‘lost his mind’ after leaving White House.
Breitbart's take on the story:
White House Blasts Michael Wolff Book as ‘Trashy Tabloid Fiction’
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders released a statement condemning a new tell-all book about the Trump administration by Michael Wolff.
“This book is filled with false and misleading accounts from individuals who have no access or influence with the White House,” Sanders said.
Wolff cites more than 200 interviews with sources for the book and multiple meetings at the White House over a period of 18 months.
But Sanders decried many of those sources, including former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who returned to Breitbart News as chairman after leaving the White House.
“Participating in a book that can only be described as trashy tabloid fiction exposes their sad, desperate attempts at relevancy,” she said.
Stephanie Grisham, the Communications Director for First Lady Melania Trump, also denounced the book after it claimed that she was “in tears—and not of joy” on election night.
“The book is clearly going to be sold in the bargain fiction section,” she wrote. “Mrs. Trump supported her husband’s decision to run for President and in fact, encouraged him to do so. She was confident he would win and was very happy when he did.”
The book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, will be published by Henry Holt & Co. on January 9.
The Guardian has got a great lead sentence:
"The sight of Donald Trump squabbling with his former strategist Steve Bannon bears a remarkable resemblance to two ferrets negotiating the inside of a sack."
An early morning posting by author Michael Wolff:
"You Can’t Make This S--- Up": My Year Inside Trump's Insane White House
Ends with this firecracker:
"At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends."
"At least nine major law firms had turned down an invitation to represent the president." !!
>67 2wonderY: Wolff has a very long article today in the New York Magazine:
Donald Trump Didn’t Want to Be President
I'm confused about today's narrative. Is it
"Trump didn't want to win"
or is it
"Trump wanted to win so badly that he colluded with Russia to cheat in the election"?
Gee, that would be inconsistent, wouldn't it?!?!? Their narrative is a schizo wacko's: all over the fucking map. And they do look ridiculous for it--to many people but they themselves cannot see this.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.