Trump violated the oath of office

[Rudy Canoza]

WASHINGTON — In what is perhaps the gravest accusation of presidential
misconduct in a scandal-ridden four months, news outlets have reported
that President Trump disclosed highly classified information to Russian
government officials during their visit to the Oval Office last week.
These are among the most serious charges ever made against a sitting
president, though there is much we do not yet know. As additional
information emerges, there are important points to keep in mind.

The reporting so far indicates that Mr. Trump did not violate any
criminal laws concerning the disclosure of classified material. The
president’s ability to classify national security information flows from
his constitutional powers as commander in chief. That means, in short,
that he gets to determine what is classified in the first place and he
may — even on a whim — lawfully declassify it or share it with whomever
he sees fit.

The question of criminality, however, is by no means the only issue here.

Mr. Trump is reported to have disclosed national security information of
profound consequence: that relating to the sources of intelligence and
methods of its collection. “Sources and methods,” as it’s known in the
intelligence community, is especially crucial because it relates not
only to the substance of intelligence, but also to the manner in which
it was obtained. When this kind of information is revealed, the nation
may no longer be able to use this method of collection in the future,
with long-term security consequences.

It’s important to understand that information related to sources and
methods is handled with the same degree of care as actual sources and
methods. That is for good reason. For example, imagine Bad Guy A and Bad
Guy B discuss a terrorist plot over a single channel that they think is
secure. If someone revealed that the government knew about the plot, and
the bad guys learned that, they would also be able to deduce that the
government had intercepted the communication channel and they would not
use it to discuss the plot again. This is the kind of information Mr.
Trump is accused of revealing to Russia.

This episode is especially worrisome because Mr. Trump did not just
jeopardize the United States’ intelligence sources, but those of another
country. Intelligence-sharing partnerships are critical to American
security interests, in particular in the coalition fight against the
Islamic State. The American intelligence community and the military
depend on a network of such partnerships with countries around the world.

Breaching the trust of a foreign partner in this way could substantially
harm that relationship, and could undermine the confidence of other
foreign governments in the United States’ ability to safeguard their
secrets. Before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, some news outlets reported
that foreign intelligence officials were concerned that the Trump
administration could not be trusted with shared intelligence. To the
extent foreign partners were already worried, their worst fears are now
confirmed.

read the rest at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/opinion/trump-impeachment-classified-information.html?_r=0

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/16/2017 3:47 PM, T wrote:
> Yeah

Yes.

[Vandar]

On 5/16/2017 6:30 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> WASHINGTON — In what is perhaps the gravest accusation of presidential
> misconduct in a scandal-ridden four months, news outlets have

erroneously

Meanwhile, everyone who at the meeting says that didn't happen.
But, by all means, trust WashPo's "unnamed source".

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/16/2017 9:30 PM, Vandar wrote:
> On 5/16/2017 6:30 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> WASHINGTON — In what is perhaps the gravest accusation of presidential
>> misconduct in a scandal-ridden four months, news outlets have
>
> erroneously

No, correctly. Trump *did* disclose highly classified information -
McMaster confirmed it and said it was "appropriate" (it wasn't, of course).

Meanwhile, everyone who was at the meeting - *including* McMaster - has
confirmed that it happened.

[NoBody]

People like Rudy create their own realities and attack those who dare
challege their fantasy worlds.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 17 May 2017 17:07:32 +0100, PIBB <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>On 05:30 17 May 2017, Vandar wrote:
>>
>> Meanwhile, everyone who at the meeting says that didn't happen.
>> But, by all means, trust WashPo's "unnamed source".
>>
>

>Who are you going to believe..... a serial liar like Trump and his
>lying co-conspirators or a newspaper which trades on its
>reputation for accurate reporting?
>

Oh that's rich, "accurate reporting" when all its main stories rely on
"sources say".

[Preston Hamblin]

That's reputable journalism. It's certainly better than your fake news
sources, which simply fabricate their "news".

[NoBody]

No, that's not "reputable" journalism. If all your information is
from "sources", you have nothing credible, especially when many of
them are later contradicted by other "sources".

[NoBody]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:42:39 +0100, PIBB <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>Trump is the boy who cried wolf. He has lied too often for anyone
>to believe anything he says. It was good trick while it lasted.
>

Kind of sounds like the media as well....

[Preston Hamblin]

You can't cite a single instance of something being contradicted by
another unnamed source. For that matter, you can't cite a single
instance of anything being PROVED false by a named source. All that
comes out of the White House and Trump himself is "Did not...did
not...did not..." You consider that a credible denial?

You are kind of a broken record with this whinging about "unnamed
sources", and because I don't like letting you get away with it, that's
turning me into a bit of one, too. As I have patiently explained
probably a dozen times in the last two days, you don't really have a
problem with the "credibility" of the unnamed sources; that's nothing
but a smokescreen for you, a phony objection. What really bothers you
is that everything that has been reported based on unnamed sources is
extremely negative about Trump, AND they all have an extremely high
degree of plausibility and reasonableness, and that just chaps your ass
to no end. But, since you have no hope whatever - literally zero - of
showing any of them to be false, you instead carp about the reporters'
methods of obtaining the negative information. You are just so
transparent in this.

Meanwhile, as I have also noted, Trump himself often confirms what has
been reported. Take the example of when he decided to fire Comey. The
initial reports out of the White House from that hapless sap Spicer and
others are that he did it after getting the memos from the DoJ. Then an
unnamed source said that Trump actually decided on firing Comey even
before asking for the memos. Then Trump went on national television and
said exactly that.

Okay, rewind the Victrola and play your silly whine again.

[Preston Hamblin]

You can't cite a single "lie" told by the mainstream media that you
caricature. The fact that they report so many negative things about a
vile pig in the White House doesn't mean they're false. You have no
valid reason to think any of them are false. However, we know that most
of what comes out of Trump's mouth and Twitter posts is false - not just
false, but a knowingly told lie.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 10:13:48 -0700, Preston Hamblin
<kick.d...@morning.noon.and.night> wrote:

>On 5/19/2017 5:39 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:42:39 +0100, PIBB <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18:35 18 May 2017, Preston Hamblin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2017 4:42 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 17:07:32 +0100, PIBB
>>>>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05:30 17 May 2017, Vandar wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, everyone who at the meeting says that didn't
>>>>>>> happen. But, by all means, trust WashPo's "unnamed source".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who are you going to believe..... a serial liar like Trump and
>>>>>> his lying co-conspirators or a newspaper which trades on its
>>>>>> reputation for accurate reporting?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh that's rich, "accurate reporting" when all its main stories
>>>>> rely on "sources say".
>>>>
>>>> That's reputable journalism. It's certainly better than your
>>>> fake news sources, which simply fabricate their "news".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Trump is the boy who cried wolf. He has lied too often for anyone
>>> to believe anything he says. It was good trick while it lasted.
>>>
>>
>> Kind of sounds like the media as well....
>
>You can't cite a single "lie" told by the mainstream media that you
>caricature.

Where's that Comey memo where he claimed he was told to stop
investigation and how does it square with his testimony (that we can
all ACTUALLY SEE) that he was never pressured to stop an
investigation?

[NoBody]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 20:17:03 +0100, PIBB <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>Oh no...... "impossible proof" trolling once again.

Yawn...try providing any proof that doesn't rely on unnamed "sources".

[Schuman]

*>crickets<*

[Schuman]

On 5/19/2017 1:17 PM, PIBB wrote:
> Oh no...... "impossible proof" trolling once again.

Alan Dershowitz
By Alan Dershowitz
Published May 20, 2017
Fox News

Now Playing

Dershowitz questions Russia counsel: Where's the crime?

At a moment in history when the ACLU is quickly becoming a partisan left
wing advocacy group that cares more about getting President Trump than
protecting due process (see my recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal,)
who is standing up for civil liberties?

The short answer is no one. Not the Democrats, who see an opportunity to
reap partisan benefit from the appointment of a special counsel to
investigate any ties between the Trump campaign / administration and
Russia. Not Republican elected officials who view the appointment as
giving them cover. Certainly not the media who are reveling in 24/7
“bombshells.” Not even the White House, which is too busy denying
everything to focus on “legal technicalities” that may sound like
“guilty man arguments.” Legal technicalities are of course the
difference between the rule of law and the iron fist of tyranny. Civil
liberties protect us all. As H.L. Mencken used to say: “The trouble
about fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend much of your
life defending sons of bitches: for oppressive laws are always aimed at
them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it
is to be stopped at all.” History demonstrates that the first casualty
of hyper-partisan politics is often civil liberties.

Consider the appointment of the special counsel to investigate “any
links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” Even if there
were such direct links that would not constitute a crime under current
federal law. Maybe it should, but prosecutors have no right to
investigate matters that should be criminal but are not.

This investigation will be conducted in secret behind closed doors;
witnesses will be denied the right to have counsel present during grand
jury questioning; they will have no right to offer exculpatory testimony
or evidence to the grand jury; inculpatory hearsay evidence will be
presented and considered by the grand jury; there will be no presumption
of innocence; no requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only
proof sufficient to establish the minimal standard of probable cause.
The prosecutor alone will tell the jury what the law is and why they
should indict; and the grand jury will do his bidding. As lawyers quip:
they will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them to. This
sounds more like Star Chamber injustice than American justice.

And there is nothing in the constitution that mandates such a kangaroo
proceeding. All the Fifth Amendment says is: “no person shall be held to
answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” The denials of due process
come from prosecutorially advocated legislative actions. The founding
fathers would be turning over in their graves if they saw what they
intended as a shield to protect defendants, turned into a rusty sword
designed to place the heavy thumb of the law on the prosecution side of
the scale.

Advocates of the current grand jury system correctly point out that a
grand jury indictment is not a conviction. The defendant has the right
to a fair jury trial, with all the safeguards provided in the
constitution. But this ignores the real impact of an indictment on the
defendant. Based on a one sided indictment alone, the “ham sandwich” can
be fired from his or her job or suspended from university. Consider what
happened to the Arthur Andersen company and its thousands of employees
when it was indicted for obstructing an official proceeding by
destroying records relating to one of its clients. Although Andersen was
ultimately vindicated, the indictment itself forced it into bankruptcy
causing a loss of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in
shareholder values. Many individual have been indicted on the basis of
one sided grand jury prosecutions and subsequently acquitted after a
fair trial. Many of these individuals also suffered grievously as the
result of being unfairly indicted.

Consider the consequences of an indictment by the special counsel’s
grand jury in this matter. Not a conviction – just an indictment handed
down by a grand jury that heard only one side in secret. It depends, of
course on who the indictment named. In the Nixon case, for example, the
president was named as an unindicted coconspirator by the Watergate
grand jury. This meant that he could not even defend himself at a trial.
I was on the national board of the ACLU at the time. And although I
despised Nixon and campaigned for his opponent, I wanted the ACLU to
object to the unfairness of a one sided grand jury naming him as an
unindicted co conspirator.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/20/dershowitz-muellers-special-counsel-appointment-begs-question-are-our-civil-liberties-now-at-risk.html

[Schuman]

On 5/19/2017 1:12 PM, PIBB wrote:
> Sorry Donald. Your goose is cooked. Pass
> the popcorn. This couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy.

[andy memory]

On 5/20/2017 12:35 PM, PIBB wrote:

> On 19:20 20 May 2017, Schuman wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2017 1:12 PM, PIBB wrote:
>>> Sorry Donald. Your goose is cooked. Pass
>>> the popcorn. This couldn't have happened to a more deserving
>>> guy.
>>>
>> Alan Dershowitz
>> By Alan Dershowitz
>> Published May 20, 2017
>> Fox News
>

> Dershowitz is interesting. He's very sincere for a guy who's so
> wrong.
>
YOU are in NO position to grade HIS veracity, you scumsucking traitor to
America.

So I will be standing up for civil liberties during the duration of this
investigation. As a civil libertarian I care more about due process and
the rule of law than I do about politics. But many people conflate my
advocacy for civil liberties with support for President Trump. I have
been bombarded with tweets such as: “Alan loves Donald. He’s throwing
him lifelines;” “Has he been hired by Trump? Time to come clean;”
“@AlanDersh I thought you were a smart guy. After hearing you support
Trumpie, guess not;” “Has Trump already hired @AlanDersh to defend him?
Clearly sounds that way;” and “No matter the subject, he inserts himself
in the conversation with a full-throated and nonsensical defense of Trump.”

Let me be clear: I voted for Hillary Clinton and oppose many of
President Trump’s policies. I would be taking the same position if the
shoe were on the other foot – if Hillary Clinton had been elected and
she were being subjected to an unfair process. Indeed I did do precisely
that when she was threatened with prosecution.

Remember the chants of “lock her up” during the campaign? I will
continue to monitor the current investigations into President Trump and
his associated for any violation of civil liberties. I will call them as
I see them, without regard to which side benefits.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus and
author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction.

[mr. natural]

On 5/20/2017 12:35 PM, PIBB wrote:

> Aha.... the "impossible proof" troll once again.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/randy-hall/2017/05/19/cnn-panel-slams-former-navy-seal-criticizing-anonymous-sources


Former Navy SEAL (Sea, Air and Land) officer Carl Higbie defended Donald
Trump even though he was surrounded by critics of the Republican
president during a discussion that quickly turned into a hostile debate
on CNN International's State of America with Kate Bolduan on Tuesday.

According to the staff at the Washington Free Beacon, the angry exchange
started after liberal host Kate Bolduan turned to the staunch Trump
supporter: “Carl, you’ve been involved with classified information. You
are a Navy SEAL. You’ve fought for this country.”

She then stated: “When you hear that this information is highly
classified, has been handed over to Russian diplomats in the Oval
Office, classified information that was so sensitive it hasn’t even been
widely seen within the U.S. government, let alone allies … .”

At that point, Higbie jumped into the conversation by declaring:

Right, I've been sitting here very quietly listening to all this
BS, quite frankly. Did you listen to anything [White House National
Security Adviser H. R.] McMaster said today, where he said: “I was in
the room, that didn't happen, nothing inappropriate was shared?”

You’re basing all these allegations off of one or maybe two sources
when CNN reports: “Two former officials knowledgeable of the situation
confirmed to CNN the main points of the story.”

Bolduan responded by using the "everybody's doing it" excuse.

“It’s not just CNN,” she noted. “It’s the Washington Post, the New York
Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, ABC.”

“Yeah, but who are the sources? ”Higbie repeated. “Oh,” we don’t know
“because they’re hiding in anonymity. That’s what we’re seeing.”

"Please!” the host growled. “Do not even start with me that you're just
going to attack sources. That is ridiculous.”

"OK, so you're saying McMaster is lying," the former SEAL replied.

“I’m not saying McMaster is lying. He didn’t answer the question,” she
snarled. “That’s his opinion. We have anonymous sources, we protect them
for real reasons, so the information that is important to the public can
get out."

“Do not attack these stellar reporters of CNN and their sources,” she added.

[Rudy Canoza]

Sorry - with that stupid question, you still haven't proved any "lies"
told by the mainstream news media. I believe that question is what you
call a "dodge", isn't it?

[Rudy Canoza]

Your phony smokescreen objection to unnamed sources - a dodge - has been
demolished.

[andy memory]

On 5/20/2017 1:17 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> I believe that question is what you call a "dodge", isn't it?

Stop socking up, tRudy:

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <William....@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8

> and I won't die soon.

Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.

> You certainly have no means to hasten my death.

Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.

[andy memory]

On 5/20/2017 1:17 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> a dodge - has been demolished.

[andy memory]

On 5/20/2017 2:41 PM, PIBB wrote:

> On 19:47 20 May 2017, andy memory wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2017 12:35 PM, PIBB wrote:
>>> On 19:20 20 May 2017, Schuman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/19/2017 1:12 PM, PIBB wrote:
>>>>> Sorry Donald. Your goose is cooked. Pass
>>>>> the popcorn. This couldn't have happened to a more deserving
>>>>> guy.
>>>>>
>>>> Alan Dershowitz
>>>> By Alan Dershowitz
>>>> Published May 20, 2017
>>>> Fox News
>>>
>>> Dershowitz is interesting. He's very sincere for a guy who's
>>> so wrong.
>>>
>> YOU are in NO position to grade HIS veracity, you scumsucking
>> traitor to America.
>>

>> ---SNIP---
>
> Dershowitz is a maverick who holds a loner's point of view.

Ah yes, the old marginalize the truth game...

> Well meaning and well read but fundamentally wrong.

Well go on then brainstem - prove it - refute him point by point, you
sleazebag traitor.

> Fox News loves to trot him out which, in itself, shows how bizarre
> his ideas are.

Nothing "bizarre" about the truth, just YOUR reaction to it.

[andy memory]

On 5/20/2017 2:42 PM, PIBB wrote:
>>> Oh no...... "impossible proof" trolling once again.
>> Yawn...try providing any proof that doesn't rely on unnamed
>> "sources".

> Q.E.D. !:-)
>

Traitors like you will be found, tried, and executed.

[Preston Hamblin]

On 5/20/2017 1:42 PM, PIBB wrote:

> Q.E.D. ! :-)

Yes, exactly.

This jackass's objection to unnamed sources is completely disingenuous.

[andy memory]

On 5/20/2017 2:55 PM, Preston Hamblin wrote:
> This jackass's objection

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Preston Hamblin]

On 5/20/2017 7:14 AM, NoBody wrote:

Your phony smokescreen objection to unnamed sources - a dodge - has been
demolished.

[Preston Hamblin]

On 5/20/2017 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:

Sorry - with that stupid question, you still haven't proved any "lies"

told by the mainstream news media. I believe that question is what you

[andy memory]

On 5/20/2017 5:53 PM, Preston Hamblin wrote:
> Sorry - with that stupid question,

[andy memory]

On 5/20/2017 5:53 PM, Preston Hamblin wrote:

> Your phony smokescreen

[NoBody]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 13:55:08 -0700, Preston Hamblin

You clearly miss the irony in your post.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 16:53:28 -0700, Preston Hamblin

That's ok since you're a known terrorist. A source told me all about
it.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 19:35:43 +0100, PIBB <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>Aha.... the "impossible proof" troll once again.

Aha...the lazy- thinking person posted again.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 16:53:28 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Comey did you idiot.

[Preston Hamblin]

Nope. Not only is it not true, but you did not "read it somewhere".

This is really lame when you're having to rely on the nonsense of
another proved liar - you can't even make up your own preposterous lie.

[Preston Hamblin]

This stupid question contains a lie for a premise. Comey SPECIFICALLY
was addressing a question about pressure from within the DoJ. Listen to
Sen. Hirono's question.

>>
>> Sorry - with that stupid question, you still haven't proved any "lies"
>> told by the mainstream news media. I believe that question is what you
>> call a "dodge", isn't it?
>
> Comey did you idiot.

He didn't. He wasn't talking about pressure from Trump. Not at that
time, anyway, but he's about to. He will testify to Congress that Trump
was inappropriately - that is, wrongly and probably illegally -
pressuring him to drop the Flynn investigation. There will be no
inconsistency with his earlier testimony, because in that he was
answering about pressure from within the DoJ. No inconsistency, no
"perjury". You can forget it.

Trump is looking worse and worse.

[Preston Hamblin]

There is no "irony". PIBB is right. You have an impossible standard of
proof, and you've shown it repeatedly.

[andy memory]

On 5/21/2017 1:17 PM, Preston Hamblin wrote:
> There is no "irony". PIBB is right.

Shut up, little man Ball, you're a crashing fascist bore:

***********************************************************************************

[andy memory]

On 5/21/2017 5:47 PM, PIBB wrote:
>> That's ok since you're a known terrorist. A source told me all
>> about it.

> You're Donald Trump

You're heading for a dark place, turn back tard.

[NoBody]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 11:27:11 -0700, Preston Hamblin

A source told me so it must be true.

>
>This is really lame when you're having to rely on the nonsense of
>another proved liar - you can't even make up your own preposterous lie.

You've not proven my source wrong so how can you call me a liar? I
remind you this is YOUR standard of proof I am using -- think about
it.

[NoBody]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 12:17:00 -0700, Preston Hamblin

There you go repeating the same lie. It is not an "impossible
standard of proof" to expect evidence to be other than something a
"source" reportedly said. If you believe that, heaven help you when
you're put on trial for being a terrorist since a source told me you
are one.

[Preston Hamblin]

It's not a lie.

[Preston Hamblin]

No, you don't have any source. You're just playing an imbecilic Usenet
"debate" game. You made it up.

>> This is really lame when you're having to rely on the nonsense of
>> another proved liar - you can't even make up your own preposterous lie.
>
> You've not proven my source wrong so how can you call me a liar?

I don't have to prove a non-existent source wrong.

As I said: you can't even make up your own preposterous lie, having to
rely on one from another idiot.

[andy memory]

On 5/22/2017 9:03 AM, Preston Hamblin wrote:
>
> It's not a lie.

Fuck you little man Ball - you ARE a fictional character!

Here's some data on YOU little man Ball:

[andy memory]

On 5/22/2017 9:03 AM, Preston Hamblin wrote:

> As I said: you can't even make up your own preposterous

[NoBody]

On Mon, 22 May 2017 08:03:51 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Then show where I've requested an "impossible standard of proof".
Please not that simply repeating your claim equates to an admission
that you can't back your assertion.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 22 May 2017 08:03:52 -0700, Preston Hamblin

My source is very reliable. Interesting how you pick and choose when
you will believe anonymous sources. Hypocritical much?

>
>>> This is really lame when you're having to rely on the nonsense of
>>> another proved liar - you can't even make up your own preposterous lie.
>>
>> You've not proven my source wrong so how can you call me a liar?
>
>I don't have to prove a non-existent source wrong.

You blindly accept the media's endless quoting of "sources" at face
value yet the moment someone has a source that says something you
don't like, it must be non-existent. Again, hypocritical much?

[Preston Hamblin]

Because you're asking the wrong people. You're asking me to "prove"
that the New York Times's unnamed sources exist and are telling the
truth. I told you why I believe them: because the information is
highly plausible, because the NYT editors require their reporters to
identify their sources (to the editors) and to confirm what they have
been told - standard journalism stuff - and because the information is
consistent with what we already know about how Trump operates, and
because Trump nearly always manages to confirm the statements himself.
So I believe the reports to be true, but I can't "prove" them because I
don't work for the New York Times.

Unnamed sources are legitimate. That is simply a fact of journalism,
and you mus accommodate yourself to the facts, as the facts will not
accommodate you - nor should they. the New York Times, and all
mainstream media - but not your idiotic right-wingnut fake news sites -
have controls on the use of unnamed sources. They reasonably justify
the use of them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/public-editor/the-risk-of-unnamed-sources-unconvinced-readers.html
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/new-york-times-anoymous-sources-policy-public-editor/
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/the-times-gives-an-update-on-anonymous-source-use/

We have established that your objection to the use of unnamed sources is
disingenuous - completely bogus.

[Preston Hamblin]

No source.

>>
>>>> This is really lame when you're having to rely on the nonsense of
>>>> another proved liar - you can't even make up your own preposterous lie.
>>>
>>> You've not proven my source wrong so how can you call me a liar?
>>
>> I don't have to prove a non-existent source wrong.
>
> You blindly accept the media's endless quoting of "sources" at face
> value yet the moment someone has a source that says something you
> don't like, it must be non-existent.

No, not blindly - with well-reasoned logic.

You continue to prove my prediction to be accurate. And you will keep
at it, too.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 05/23/2017 12:10 PM, PIBB wrote:

> I once knew someone in real life who was continually surly and
> always sneered at conventional understanding. In his case he
> thought he was glimpsing the real truth while everyone else was
> getting duped. His world view made perfect sense to him but not
> to anyone else. After years of knowing this guy, I figured he had
> some sort of psychosis. There was no way of helping him. His
> thought processes and grasp of reality were dysfunctional.

Like gays.... and Liberals and Feminists?

They make up words and completely re-arrange the world to fit their
contorted belief system.

Liberalism is a psychosis, maybe it does take one to know one?

--
That's Karma

[Corba Mite]

On 5/23/2017 10:10 AM, PIBB wrote:
> I once knew someone in real life who was continually surly and
> always sneered at conventional understanding. In his case he
> thought he was glimpsing the real truth while everyone else was
> getting duped. His world view made perfect sense to him but not
> to anyone else. After years of knowing this guy, I figured he had
> some sort of psychosis. There was no way of helping him. His
> thought processes and grasp of reality were dysfunctional.

That's what ya get for hanging with leftards pal!

[Corba Mite]

On 5/23/2017 10:06 AM, PIBB wrote:
> Poster "NoBody" often seems to be following this advice:

You seem to be a deep state traitor shill - die real soon.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 23 May 2017 08:57:39 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Of course I have a source, just like the NYT has "sources"

>
>>>
>>>>> This is really lame when you're having to rely on the nonsense of
>>>>> another proved liar - you can't even make up your own preposterous lie.
>>>>
>>>> You've not proven my source wrong so how can you call me a liar?
>>>
>>> I don't have to prove a non-existent source wrong.
>>
>> You blindly accept the media's endless quoting of "sources" at face
>> value yet the moment someone has a source that says something you
>> don't like, it must be non-existent.
>
>No, not blindly - with well-reasoned logic.

Heh....

[NoBody]

On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:12 +0100, PIBB <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>On 16:57 23 May 2017, Preston Hamblin wrote:
>

>I once knew someone in real life who was continually surly and
>always sneered at conventional understanding. In his case he
>thought he was glimpsing the real truth while everyone else was
>getting duped. His world view made perfect sense to him but not
>to anyone else. After years of knowing this guy, I figured he had
>some sort of psychosis. There was no way of helping him. His
>thought processes and grasp of reality were dysfunctional.
>

Sounds like you're describing Preston perfectly!

[NoBody]

On Tue, 23 May 2017 08:57:40 -0700, Preston Hamblin

You took up a lot of words to say you can't provide any examples where
I've asked for an "impossible standard of proof". BTW, you have
"established" nothing. I've shown you the standards of journalism
that suggest that use of "sources" should be avoided if possible and
not be relied upon solely. You've chosen to ignore facts, which is
*you* being disingenuous.

[Preston Hamblin]

No, you don't have a source. As predicted, you're just being stupid
over and over, day after day. This is at least four today, and there
were at least four yesterday and the day before that, and there will be
at least four tomorrow. You're really, really stupid.

[Preston Hamblin]

He's describing you. He's describing every unhinged extremist clown, on
any point of the political spectrum, but mostly he's describing you.

You have no "source" that said I'm a terrorist. The other clown started
this stupidity game, and you - unimaginative and even more stupid than
he is - copied it. You're stupid, and you'll be stupid on this exact
same thing at least four times tomorrow, and then the next day, and so on.

[Preston Hamblin]

I did show it.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 24 May 2017 09:23:44 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Since you can't get basic Usenet post history correct (nor
attributions apparently), you have no room to judge. My source has
confirmed the claim with a second source. If it's good enough for the
NYT, it should be good enough for anyone.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 24 May 2017 09:23:44 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Another lie. Because I don't accept "sources say", that doesn't mean
I have an "impossible standard of proof". It appears you have NO
standard of proof, unless you disagree with what is being said.

[Preston Hamblin]

When you are demanding that WE produce evidence, when we aren't the
journalists who spoke with the sources, then yes, you have an impossible
standard of proof.

Anyway, we have dispensed with your phony objection to unnamed sources.
Because you're a perseverator, you can't let go.

[Preston Hamblin]

And there's #4.

Maybe I was wrong - maybe there will be #5 and #6 in one of the posts I
haven't yet encountered.

Prediction: you'll keep going with the obvious lie multiple times
tomorrow. You can't help yourself. You're a perseverator.

[Corba Mite]

On 5/25/2017 11:00 AM, Preston Hamblin wrote:
> Maybe I was wrong

Coward.

[Corba Mite]

On 5/25/2017 11:00 AM, Preston Hamblin wrote:

> you are demanding that WE produce evidence

Coward.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 25 May 2017 10:00:45 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Wow your spin is faster and faster. Because reporters rely solely on
unnamed sources and I challenge your blind acceptance of that, *I'm*
the one with the impossible standard of proof. You accept no proof as
gospel. I'd accept any tangible, verifiable proof. Unnamed sources
aren't verifiable.

>Anyway, we have dispensed with your phony objection to unnamed sources.
>Because you're a perseverator, you can't let go.

Check the mirror lately? There is nothing phony about my not trusting
unnamed sources. I don't trust them regardless of the source or topic
because THEY CAN'T BE VERIFIED. Duh!

[NoBody]

On Thu, 25 May 2017 10:00:46 -0700, Preston Hamblin

I find it hypocritical that you whine about me replying to you when
you reflexively respond to every message.

>Prediction: you'll keep going with the obvious lie multiple times
>tomorrow. You can't help yourself. You're a perseverator.

Ok Rudy...

[Preston Hamblin]

<chuckle> # *SIX*!

Okay, kid - starting tomorrow, I'm only going to respond to one of them.
My time is valuable, while yours apparently isn't. Go ahead and waste
some of your worthless time responding to the other five with one of
your stupid lame Usenet tropes - "runs away", "crickets.wav" - if it
gives you a nice warm feeling in your panties; I don't really care.

[Preston Hamblin]

No spin.

>> Anyway, we have dispensed with your phony objection to unnamed sources.
>> Because you're a perseverator, you can't let go.
>
> Check the mirror lately? There is nothing phony about my not trusting
> unnamed sources.

There is, because that's not the issue. We've established that.

The use of unnamed sources is a standard and ethical practice of journalism.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 26 May 2017 07:38:36 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Glad to hear it. You'll save a lot of folks time scrolling past your
nonsensical, dishonest replies.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 26 May 2017 07:38:37 -0700, Preston Hamblin

ALL spin.

>
>>> Anyway, we have dispensed with your phony objection to unnamed sources.
>>> Because you're a perseverator, you can't let go.
>>
>> Check the mirror lately? There is nothing phony about my not trusting
>> unnamed sources.
>
>There is, because that's not the issue. We've established that.
>
>The use of unnamed sources is a standard and ethical practice of journalism.

Then why did my citation of journalistic standards discourage the use
of them, Rudy?

[Preston Hamblin]

No, you're not. You live for these Usenet circle-jerks - which you
always start.

[Preston Hamblin]

No spin.

>>>> Anyway, we have dispensed with your phony objection to unnamed sources.
>>>> Because you're a perseverator, you can't let go.
>>>
>>> Check the mirror lately? There is nothing phony about my not trusting
>>> unnamed sources.
>>
>> There is, because that's not the issue. We've established that.
>>
>> The use of unnamed sources is a standard and ethical practice of journalism.
>
> Then why did my citation of journalistic standards discourage the use
> of them, Rudy?

<chuckle> It didn't, and that was not in any way authoritative anyway.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 26 May 2017 20:53:09 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Keep repearting your lie in hopes that someone believes you. In fact,
I command you to do so.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 26 May 2017 20:52:15 -0700, Preston Hamblin

I'm not the one who started a thread just to whine about behavior in
which you yourself are engaging. You're delusional Rudy.

[Preston Hamblin]

No lie.

[Preston Hamblin]

Yes, you most certainly ARE the one who started it. You slavishly and
unimaginatively copied that other clown and started your own thread, and
now you can't let it go.

[NoBody]

On Sun, 28 May 2017 09:56:32 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Mr. Obsessive Rudy / Preston strikes again!

[NoBody]

On Sun, 28 May 2017 09:56:41 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Post the thread that you claim *I* started. We'll wait while you turn
and run and hide as always, Mr. Obsessive.

[Preston Hamblin]

"Three days ago. A 'source' read a memo to me over the phone."
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 10:21:09 -0400
Message-ID: <dg83ictgj82543vcs...@4ax.com>

Predictions:
1. You don't know how to find message IDs, so you'll like and say I haven't
given "evidence" that you started your own deflection
2. You will now go off an another days-long circle-jerk deflection
about this

I'm right. You know I am. You can't help yourself.

[Preston Hamblin]

No.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 11:37:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin

That's not a "started thread" is it? You claimed I copied "that other
clown" and started a new thread. Where's the messages to support
those claims, Mr. Obsessive?

[Preston Hamblin]

It is your first comment on the topic. It's a subthread, and you
started it. Then, as I predicted, you went round and round for days
with that stupid attempt at deflection. You're still doing it.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:52:10 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Making up your own terms agains. "Started a thread" is exactly what
it said, and you lied about it. Additionally, you claimed I "copied
that other clown" yet can't seem to fine a link that proves that --
another lie. Face it Rudy / Preston, you're a compulsive, obsessive
liar.

> Then, as I predicted, you went round and round for days
>with that stupid attempt at deflection. You're still doing it.

My "sources" are just as good as yours (and you broke your rule again
FYI).

[Preston Hamblin]

No.

>> Then, as I predicted, you went round and round for days
>> with that stupid attempt at deflection. You're still doing it.
>
> My "sources"

No sources.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 08:17:43 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Yes

>
>>> Then, as I predicted, you went round and round for days
>>> with that stupid attempt at deflection. You're still doing it.
>>
>> My "sources"
>
>No sources.

They are as good as yours.

[Preston Hamblin]

>>>> Then, as I predicted, you went round and round for days
>>>> with that stupid attempt at deflection. You're still doing it.
>>>
>>> My "sources"
>>
>> No sources.
>
> They are as good as yours.

No, you don't have any for your silly Usenet game. The New York Times
and Washington Post reporters do have sources. It just fries you that
you don't know their names. That's a shame.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 10:08:32 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Just as you don't know the names of my sources. They are just as
reliable as what you accept from the NYT.

[Preston Hamblin]

I know that you have none. You fabricated the stupid yarn, in slavish
imitation of another clown who is only marginally less dim, dull,
plodding, thoughtless, unimaginative and unoriginal than you.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 11:13:40 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Your impossible standard of proof is so noted.

[Preston Hamblin]

Nope.

Settled: there is no "source" who told you, or the other clown whom you
slavishly copied, that I am a terrorist. No one ever said it until that
clown decided to start the stupid Usenet game.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:17:34 -0700, Preston Hamblin

Your double-standard of proof is what has been settled. Glad you
agree with me. Oh and still waiting for that message from that "other
clown" that you claim exists. You grow more laughable by the day.

[Preston Hamblin]

Nope. I have no double standard at all. You KNOW that mainstream
reporters are talking to people in government or who formerly were in
government all the time. You know this. You never talked to anyone who
said I was a terrorist. We both know it, but I know it in a way you
cannot know. Eventually I'll get around to telling you exactly why I
know that no one told you that - that is, you lied about a "source".

Meanwhile, as I predicted, you are still stupidly engaging in the same
stupid tangent and digression - not "diversion" - and you'll keep doing
it for days longer. All my predictions about you are accurate.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 10:45:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin

As far as you know...

> We both know it, but I know it in a way you
>cannot know. Eventually I'll get around to telling you exactly why I
>know that no one told you that - that is, you lied about a "source".

My source is just as credible as the sources you are relying upon. You
really aren't too bright, are you.

>
>Meanwhile, as I predicted, you are still stupidly engaging in the same
>stupid tangent and digression - not "diversion" - and you'll keep doing
>it for days longer. All my predictions about you are accurate.

As I predict you will obsessively respond to this message because you
can't stand it when you are wrong.

[Preston Hamblin]

We all know it.

>> We both know it, but I know it in a way you
>> cannot know. Eventually I'll get around to telling you exactly why I
>> know that no one told you that - that is, you lied about a "source".
>
> My source

No source. You've acknowledged it.

>>
>> Meanwhile, as I predicted, you are still stupidly engaging in the same
>> stupid tangent and digression - not "diversion" - and you'll keep doing
>> it for days longer. All my predictions about you are accurate.

My prediction is borne out! They always are - 100% of them.