Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Tiggs

Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

2,214 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

The Falkland Conflict was NOT a war. Argentina never declared war on Britain, and Britain never declared war on Argentina. 

There WAS, however, a state of Armed Conflict. The British Government issued a 'warming to mariners' note, stating that Argentinian naval (and merchant navy) vessels could be attacked at any time, regardless of whether they where in the exclusion zone or not. 

Argentinian troops never occupied the Falklands "peacefully", and neither the Falklands nor South Georgia belonged to Argentina at the time. 

So no, there was no question of war crimes in this particular case. I'm not sure how this helps the discussion of the Mueller Report ? 

Narrowmind roiled the waters so I threw some chum in. The status of the Islas Malvinas depends on which side is doing the talking. Of course, possession is nine tenths of the law, so, they're the Falklands, for now.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
23 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

no, there was no question of war crimes in this particular case. I'm not sure how this helps the discussion of the Mueller Report ? 

It appears to have been a fairly weak attempt at a Strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I didn't say that the actions were not authorised, I said that it wasn't a war in the general sense. There was no formal declaration of war.

When the bullets start flying is a war in the general sense.  There doesn’t need to be a formal declaration.  This is not a grammar class.  We have had 11 formal declarations of war in 5 conflicts, at least 25 conflicts supported by Congress and on at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.  The formal declared war is the exception.  The key action in all of them is that Congress had eventually allocated the funds for all of them.  The bottom line is the official declaration of war.

 

And your reasoning for why war was not declared doesn't hold up. The US has attacked numerous countries since WW2 without a declaration of war. And when I say numerous, I'm talking tens, not a few. None of them apparently warranted a formal declaration, without the reason you have given.

I’m pretty sure that the US is not the only nation that has attacked others without a formal declaration of war.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
3 hours ago, South Alabam said:

The terrorist and those that supported them came from many nations and rather than declare war on 14 nations that we have so far used military action in, Congress authorized the President to wage war against terrorist in any nation they were found using the AUMF consistent within the War Powers Act.

To say Congress didn't authorize it, you are wrong, to say it may not be an official war in Afghanistan, instead an authorized AUMF, you are right. Word salad I suppose.

Well, John Walker Lindh was never charged with treason. But not because Congress hadn't issued an official declaration of war. 

Quote

Many legal experts say the federal government is unlikely to file treason charges against John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Talib, because it is such a difficult crime to prove.

The Bush administration is weighing prosecution options that range from charging Lindh, 20, with treason, which carries a possible death penalty, conspiracy to murder or a lesser charge, such as providing aid to a terrorist organization.

Treason is a crime of distinction; it's the only one defined in the U.S. Constitution. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," according to Article III, Section 3. To get a conviction, the government must have two eyewitnesses to the same overt act of treason or a confession in open court from the defendant.

That rigorous standard is a key factor in why there have been only 30 prosecutions for treason in U.S. history and none since 1952.

L.A. Times

Harte

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Was The Falkland War a "Declared War"? When a British submarine sank The General Belgrano in an undeclared war causing huge loss of life, was that a war crime? When the British loosed their Gurkhas on Argentine troops peacefully occupying Argentine islands was that a war crime, too? 

A piece of useless trivia…the ARA General Belgrano was the Brooklyn class cruiser, USS Phoenix which was at Pearl Harbor and had a distinguished war record.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Narrowmind roiled the waters so I threw some chum in. The status of the Islas Malvinas depends on which side is doing the talking. Of course, possession is nine tenths of the law, so, they're the Falklands, for now.

And according to the islanders' right to self determination. 

Anyway, completely irrelevant to the point EMM made unless someone was tried for treason in the US during that conflict. Can't imagine they were as you had no part in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 5/22/2019 at 1:01 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

Anyone claiming that the Dems, acting completely within the boundaries of the laws that govern your country, could be accused of treason is an outright idiot with no concept of the meaning of the term. Trump only uses it to (successfully) stir up the ignorant amongst those who follow him blindly.

The three CO-EQUAL branches check the others.  That is their Constitutional duties.  It is not their only duties.  But what the Progs in the House are doing, is trying to usurp the legitimate power in the office of the President.  They are undermining the election process and disenfranchising the electorate.  That is a soft coup.

23 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

If the investigation was part of an attempted coup, wouldn't they have fabricated evidence or something?

The whole thing has been fabricated.  I’m finding that when I talk to people and they tell me how discussed with Trump they are, I ask them what news do they watch?  Of course, it is all from the MSM.  Unless you know Trump or are able to see him for who he is, your opinion of him has been tainted by the hatred of the MSM.  And most people are just not aware of it.  That’s how brainwashed people are.  When I point that out, it unsettles them because they naturally feel being used.  It takes a long time to free themselves from it, if they ever do.

Wouldn't they have went ahead and charged Jr for the illegal Trump Tower meeting instead of letting him off? The investigation itself debunks that wild claim.

They are still trying.

How can following your own laws and constitution be a coup? It's more of the 'drain the swamp' type of catchy phrases that feed into the desires of his supporters.

There’s one thing to follow the law and another to weaponize it to attack the President and American citizens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
24 minutes ago, Setton said:

And according to the islanders' right to self determination. 

Anyway, completely irrelevant to the point EMM made unless someone was tried for treason in the US during that conflict. Can't imagine they were as you had no part in it. 

We aided and abetted your endeavor. Curiously. The United States has a bit of history with the islands from 1831 when The U.S.S Lexington raided the Buenos Aires settlement there in a hunting and fishing dispute. The Royal Navy returned in 1833 to reassert British claim to the Islands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
11 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

We aided and abetted your endeavor. Curiously. The United States has a bit of history with the islands from 1831 when The U.S.S Lexington raided the Buenos Aires settlement there in a hunting and fishing dispute. The Royal Navy returned in 1833 to reassert British claim to the Islands.

And that return was the HMS Beagle with a prestigious passenger.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

@Gromdor  - the Dems are desperate to stop what is about to happen to fellow party members.

Notice the dems call for all these financial records of Trump, and all they are doing is hoping to catch *something* . Ya. another fishing expedition

Yeah....  I'm not really buying into the idea that the Dems are going to be rounded up, detained in Guantanamo, and put under military tribunal that the far right/qanon is pushing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
Merc14
43 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Yeah....  I'm not really buying into the idea that the Dems are going to be rounded up, detained in Guantanamo, and put under military tribunal that the far right/qanon is pushing. 

Why would a military "tribunal" be used, these will be criminal charges brought by the DoJ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
12 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Why would a military "tribunal" be used, these will be criminal charges brought by the DoJ?

Beats me.  It's just some nonsense that they have been spouting these last two years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
27 minutes ago, susieice said:

In the first link, it mentions that Haig went to London to mediate but delivered a message to Thatcher that the US was supporting them.

 

Now, Trump has ordered these spying documents to be declassified.  Some of the documents could be embarrassing to England, Australia, and Italy.  It’s very curious that Trump has a visit to England on the 3rd.  Can’t be a coincidence now could it?  What if this visit is to deliver a message of support to the queen and not to worry?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, RavenHawk said:

In the first link, it mentions that Haig went to London to mediate but delivered a message to Thatcher that the US was supporting them.

 

Now, Trump has ordered these spying documents to be declassified.  Some of the documents could be embarrassing to England, Australia, and Italy.  It’s very curious that Trump has a visit to England on the 3rd.  Can’t be a coincidence now could it?  What if this visit is to deliver a message of support to the queen and not to worry?

That's weird.  Can't reveal the full Mueller report because it might reveal sensitive information and hurt the US, but declassifing anything that might help discredit his investigators won't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

There’s one thing to follow the law and another to weaponize it to attack the President and American citizens.

If Barr is a serious, professional who truly prizes the integrity of our legal system and he follows where this sorry trail leads then the country is going to be truly roiled.  The 5th column will fight it every step of the way and may even instigate violence to stop indictments.  IF the statements of criminal action we've heard are true and can be evidenced with emails, phone calls, notes, and testimony then several members of the FBI should go to prison and Clapper and Brennan should be there also.

The truly troubling aspect of this whole nightmare is that the media seems to have the ability to convince half the nation that what we're seeing is exactly the opposite of what is actually happening.  THAT is profoundly troubling.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I believe this visit has been planned for a while and the main reason these documents haven't been declassified is the Mueller probe was underway, now that it has concluded they can open the books for the American people to see.  I expect Nadler or one of the other democrat weasels to protest that declassifying will hinder their probes.  Pound sand Jerry. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

In the first link, it mentions that Haig went to London to mediate but delivered a message to Thatcher that the US was supporting them.

 

Now, Trump has ordered these spying documents to be declassified.  Some of the documents could be embarrassing to England, Australia, and Italy.  It’s very curious that Trump has a visit to England on the 3rd.  Can’t be a coincidence now could it?  What if this visit is to deliver a message of support to the queen and not to worry?

I have been an Anglophile for as long as I can remember but if MI5 or MI6 took part in this then it needs to come out.  Not just because of the damage to Trump but because if they spy on our citizens to get around our laws then what does CIA do for the British government against the rights of Brits?  You'd think they'd want to know, what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

That's weird.  Can't reveal the full Mueller report because it might reveal sensitive information and hurt the US, but declassifing anything that might help discredit his investigators won't?

You forgot about Grand Jury testimony.  I'm surprised you don't want to see the truth about what happened sicne you've been screaming for it for two years. What happened?   What are you afraid of grommy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, Merc14 said:

You forgot about Grand Jury testimony.  I'm surprised you don't want to see the truth about what happened sicne you've been screaming for it for two years. What happened?   What are you afraid of grommy?

Nah, I'm fine with a Nune's report version 3.0.  Trump would be declassifying the Grand Jury testimony as well, is he not?  Those were the basis of the surveillance and investigation, after all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
7 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Can't reveal the full Mueller report because it might reveal sensitive information and hurt the US,

Wrong again, Sparky.  It's 6E material that's mostly redacted.  A Democrat Congress passed those rules into law after a Republican SC enumerated all sorts of lewd testimony that made whisperin'Bill seem like a right perv.  Frankly, I didn't mind the new laws because if Grand Jury testimony is routinely going to be made public it could severely damage the integrity of our legal system.  The redactions are very few and most of them could be read if lard-ass would go to the SCIF.  But he can't do that and make all those details public so he can't use it to push his narrative.  He's a disgusting human being and so is Nancy, and most of the rest of their senior leadership.  There are quite a few R's that are in the same cesspool with them.  After Nancy's escalation of asking Trump's family for an intervention that B ought to be given ECT.  * that's ELECTRO-CONVULSIVE-THERAPY, for those of you in Rio Linda*  She's literally BABBLING incoherently these days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
Just now, Gromdor said:

Nah, I'm fine with a Nune's report version 3.0.  Trump would be declassifying the Grand Jury testimony as well, is he not?  Those were the basis of the surveillance and investigation, after all.  

No, that is against the law plus the GJ testimony isn't classified it is simply protected  What he is declassifying is the FBI 302's and all the emails and background chatter leading to the investigation in the first place.  I expect it will come out in batches.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
16 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

In the first link, it mentions that Haig went to London to mediate but delivered a message to Thatcher that the US was supporting them.

 

Now, Trump has ordered these spying documents to be declassified.  Some of the documents could be embarrassing to England, Australia, and Italy.  It’s very curious that Trump has a visit to England on the 3rd.  Can’t be a coincidence now could it?  What if this visit is to deliver a message of support to the queen and not to worry?

I remember when the Falklands happened there was a lot of mention about the Monroe Doctrine which, old as it is, is still in effect. The US is treaty bound to defend South America against European influence. Of course, we would not go against Great Britain. It was a touchy situation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
3 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

No, that is against the law plus the GJ testimony isn't classified it is simply protected  What he is declassifying is the FBI 302's and all the emails and background chatter leading to the investigation in the first place.  I expect it will come out in batches.

Still seems to be an overall good thing to me.  Trump stonewalled anything related to the investigation.  For him to come out and decide to declassify things because it might attack his foes is still releasing information that he was hiding before.  I have faith enough in our alphabet agencies that they operated properly- and if they didn't they deserve punishment.  Not seeing how it will affect Dems much though.  Other than a few people here and there, law enforcement agencies tend to be Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • RavenHawk