[mike777]

The Huxtables were the exception. How many babies are born out of wedlock? How many families are single parent homes?

Again if we are going to have a race discussion as a first step lets define and use a standard of measurement to define race or is race self defined not something we are born to and unchangeable

I mean we all have ancient ancestors from Africa...

[RedSpawn]

johnu, on 2017-August-01, 10:29, said:

Wow In case you didn't notice, the key phrase in that form "Form 104 - Currency Transaction Report" is "Currency".

Since you apparently know how to find things on Wikipedia, but not really understand what you are looking at, this is from the entry from Form 104 - Currency Transaction Report,

"A currency transaction report (CTR) is a report that U.S. financial institutions are required to file with FinCEN for each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency, or other payment or transfer, by, through, or to the financial institution which involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000.[1][2] Used in this context, currency means the coin and/or paper money of any country that is designated as legal tender by the country of issuance. Currency also includes U.S. silver certificates, U.S. notes, Federal Reserve notes, and official foreign bank notes.[3]"

Just to be clear, if a company or individual, let's make up a name, say "Putin Enterprises", electronically wired Trump 500 million rubles, it would not be a currency transaction and no form would be filed.

edit: My guess is that Trump personally had zero CTR's filed because I don't know why he would be dealing with $10,000+ in cash. Any large transactions would be by check or wire transfer. Probably his golf courses or hotels occasionally have $10K+ cash transactions, but those are business entities.

http://www.pyapc.com...se-vs-phase-ii/

Here are the businesses that can NOT be excluded from the Currency Transaction Report:

• Auctioning of goods
  
• Chartering or operating ships, buses, or aircraft
  
• Engaging in gaming of any kind, such as selling lottery tickets
  
• Engaging in investment advisory or investment banking services
  
• Engaging in union activities
  
• Operating a pawn brokerage
  
• Operating real estate brokerage, title insurance activities, or real estate closings
  
• Practicing law, accounting, or medicine
  
• Purchasing or selling a motorized vehicle of any kind
  
• Serving as a financial institution, such as a check-cashing company

Didn't Trump own a business known as Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. and wasn't it a CASINO as in the gaming business.

If it was making money OR HEMORRHAGING money from casino gaming, wouldn't it have cash deposits/withdrawals of $10,000 from gaming proceeds/payouts. My guess is that it was hemorrhaging money since it filed for bankruptcy in 2004, 2009 and 2014. (every 5 years).

https://en.wikipedia...ainment_Resorts

And furthermore, as Trump was in the construction business working with several contractors, some legitimate and some shady as hell, some of them were wanting payment in cash. I'm not buying that the government wouldn't have enough CTR's from both construction companies and his casinos to get a good idea about the going-ons of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.

http://www.politico....ed-crime-213910 ===> He's been tied to the construction industry too long to avoid any and all CTR's. We just haven't acted on it until now.

[mike777]

Not sure what the goal of all of this is.

One party loses the Presidency and spends all its time and effort to get the new guy kicked out or put in jail??
The goal is to criminalize politics??

Some of these posts come across as that is the poster's ultimate goal

[PassedOut]

ldrews, on 2017-July-29, 10:23, said:

I no longer consider the Washington Post a reliable source of news.

Speaking of the Post, here is a good look at how investigative journalism and fake news sometimes work hand in hand: A timeline of the explosive lawsuit alleging a White House link in the Seth Rich conspiracy

Quote

NPR’s David Folkenflik reported Tuesday morning on a lawsuit filed by a man named Rod Wheeler that makes a remarkable claim: The Trump White House — or President Trump personally — may have been aware of or involved in a discredited Fox News story about the killing of a Democratic National Committee staffer last July.

It will be interesting to see a comparable story put out by Fox about how a fake news bombshell made it into the Post. But I'm not holding my breath...

[y66]

From Time for Stephen Bannon to Start Worrying?

Quote

These are dangerous days for Stephen Bannon, President Trump’s brain. A new book about the White House chief strategist portrays the president as the empty vessel into which Mr. Bannon poured his ideology and agenda, propelling the two of them into the White House. The book, “Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency,” by Joshua Green, a reporter who has known Mr. Bannon for years, is a best seller that gives Mr. Trump second billing. That’s made the empty vessel very angry.

Mr. Trump’s White House is drifting so dangerously that we find ourselves searching for ballast in unlikely places. There’s Jeff Sessions, who refused to resign his post as attorney general amid daily humiliations. The new chief of staff, John Kelly, got off to a good start by arranging the sacking of Anthony Scaramucci, the inept and mercifully short-lived communications director.

And then there’s — ready for this? — Mr. Bannon, the alt-right ideologue who’s emerged as one of the steadier hands on the ship. During the bile-filled, Breitbart-fueled campaign, Mr. Bannon encouraged Mr. Trump, who called him “my Steve,” to toss all convention overboard. Now, while Mr. Trump tweets and rages, and drifts aimlessly from one policy to the next, Mr. Bannon keeps a whiteboard in his office war room with a handwritten list of Mr. Trump’s campaign promises. Not many of these promises have been checked off. But what’s interesting is that Mr. Bannon is keeping such a list, and while it’s easy to disagree with a lot of the items on it, he at least seems to represent fealty to what Trump voters said they wanted.

He also seems, at times, a voice for sanity, although in the Trump White House that’s a relative term. He objected to Mr. Trump’s untimely firing of James Comey, the F.B.I. director; warned Mr. Trump against continuing his abusive campaign against Mr. Sessions; and opposed Mr. Scaramucci’s appointment, saying Mr. Trump needed a professional, not another inexperienced loyalist, to guide a press shop whose “messaging” consists mostly of post-tweet babble.

On policy matters, Mr. Bannon opposes further troop commitments to Afghanistan, and he has urged that taxes on the incomes of the wealthiest Americans remain high as part of any comprehensive tax reform.

Mr. Bannon “understands the base more than anybody else in the building, and may be the only person in the building who’s thinking three or four moves ahead,” says Barry Bennett, a former adviser to the Trump campaign who makes a nice living offering public relations counsel to Mr. Trump’s Twitter targets, like the government of Qatar. “He is very keyed into middle-class America. In the White House he may be their only advocate.”

But as the Chinese idiom goes, the shot hits the bird that pokes its head out. Last week Mr. Trump channeled his ire at Mr. Bannon through the Mooch’s potty mouth, whose barking-mad phone call to The New Yorker — I’m paraphrasing mightily here — impugned Mr. Bannon as a self-promoter exploiting the president to “build his own brand.”

Mr. Trump’s departed Mini-Me probably didn’t come up with that characterization on his own. Now that Reince Priebus, the fired chief of staff with whom he’d had an alliance of sorts, is gone, Mr. Bannon might be worrying about his future, too.

Mr. Bannon is a wily operator who’s dodged many Trump tirades. A former naval officer, he gets along with Mr. Kelly, the Marine Corps general who mowed down the Mooch. But given Mr. Trump’s weakness, vanity and plain incompetence, there are limits to how much Mr. Bannon, who helped birth this dysfunctional presidency, can do to fix it.

[y66]

From the trailer for WhiteHouse!

Quote

BAKER: OK, if I may, can I ask you quick, Mr. President, we’ve talked about your achievements and disappointments. I was reminded of President Eisenhower, when he left office, said that his two biggest mistakes in officer were both sitting on the Supreme Court. From things you’ve been saying in the –

TRUMP: So far I can’t say that, right?

BAKER: From the same – from the things you’ve been saying in the last week or so, and tweeting, it sounds as though you may think that maybe your biggest mistake is running the Justice Department. Is that –

TRUMP: I’m disappointed in Jeff Sessions, yes.

WSJ: Do you want him to leave?

TRUMP: Number one, they should go after the leakers in intelligence. I don’t mean the White House stuff where they’re fighting over who loves me the most, OK? (Laughter.) It’s just stupid people doing that.

BAKER: Anthony’s already taken care of that. (Laughter.)

TRUMP: I know, that’s just – and Anthony will handle that. [aughter.] I can – Anthony can do that out of his back pocket, OK? I’m talking about intelligence leaks. I’m talking like the story about Syria that was in The New York Times the other day. I’m – which by the way, was a decision made by people, not me. But, you know, they wrote it 100 – it was in the –

WSJ: The Post, I thought. It was in The Washington Post.

TRUMP: It was in The Washington Post. That was not something that I was involved in, other than they did come and they suggested. It turns out it’s – a lot of al-Qaida we’re giving these weapons to. You know, they didn’t write the truthful story, which they never do. So all of those things are very important. But, no, I’m very disappointed in the fact that the Justice Department has not gone after the leakers. And they’re the ones that have the great power to go after the leakers, you understand. So – and I’m very disappointed in Jeff Sessions.

WSJ: You can fire him.

TRUMP: Look, Jeff – I could. But we’ll see what happens. But I was – I appointed a man to a position. And then shortly after he gets the position, he recused himself. I said, what’s that all about? Why didn’t you tell me that you were going to do that, and I wouldn’t have appointed you? But I appointed him. And shortly thereafter, he recused himself. So I think that is a –

BAKER: You also suggested in Cleveland today they should be going – or, yesterday – they should be going after Hillary Clinton. Is that –

TRUMP: Well, I didn’t – I wouldn’t have wanted to. But I see the way they go after us on a witch hunt, you know? The Russian – the Russian story’s all an excuse for the Democrats losing. In fact, if you read the book, “Shattered,” they have a whole chapter where they sat the day after the election and they said: Yeah, Russia. It was Russia. And, you know, Trump was involved. OK, the one thing interesting, you never heard me even associated with anybody. But, no, that’s a total witch hunt, the whole Russia story. It’s a hoax. It’s a hoax. We had no collusion with Russia. We never dealt with Russia.

People that were on the campaign, like Corey, came in yesterday. It was very interesting. He was being interviewed. He said – I was watching, Corey Lewandowski – he says: I was here from the beginning. And I must be honest with you, I never dealt with any Russians. He was only the campaign manager. I can even look at Hope. She was here from virtually the same day that Corey started, those two. Hope, how many Russians have you seen involved in the campaign, OK?

HOPE HICKS: None. (Laughs.)

TRUMP: OK? You know, I mean, it’s sad. So they do that. And I say, that’s fine. But then we should really look at real crimes, because real crimes are what Hillary did with 33,000 emails, where she deleted them and bleached them after getting a subpoena. Real crimes are what’s happening and what happened with the uranium deal. And also – I mean, you can say the speeches made while she was secretary of state where they paid her a fortune, Podesta owning a big company in Russia – they talk about me. I have nothing to do with Russia.

You know, I put out a letter from a very – from the biggest law firm saying Trump has no involvement with Russia. I don’t. I have no involvement. I mean, I had Ms. Universe there, like, nine years ago, eight years ago, something like that. But I have nothing to do with Russia. So – and it’s very funny, because all of these people that have been on the campaign, some of them right from the beginning – Anthony’s another example. You’ve been there. You know –

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI (?): (Inaudible) – I said from the podium on Friday that’s there’s nothing to the Russia story. I said on the weekend there was nothing to the Russia story.

TRUMP: You know, Anthony came in to see me before it all began. And he said, I want to back you for president. This was before the June 16th day. I said, Anthony, I’m not really sure that I’m running. I’m not sure. I may, but I’m not sure. He said, you got to run, you got to run. I want to endorse you. I said, but I’m not sure. This was a few months earlier than when I ran. And he was leaving and he was disappointed. I say, Anthony, what are you going to do? He goes, I got to back somebody, because that’s the way he is. That’s his personality. And he went to a very good guy named Walker.

Then I came after the hedge fund business. So he wasn’t in love with me for a short period of time. And he backed Bush. And that was OK. But his first choice was Trump. I think it’s important to say that because, you know. Is that a true story, by the way?

SCARAMUCCI (?): I was hitting you a little bit – (inaudible) – hedge funds first.

TRUMP: Give me those notes, Hope, come on, just give – I can’t read it. What do you think, I have 20/20 perfect –

HICKS: I was just saying, you self-funded.

TRUMP: Huh?

HICKS: You self-funded.

TRUMP: Oh, yeah, I self-funded much of my –

WSJ: Just on Sessions, just one thing. Would you like to see him step aside? Would you like to see him resign? Would it be in the country’s best interest just –

TRUMP: I’m just very disappointed in him. I’m disappointed in, you know, a number of categories. I told you, the leakers. He should have – he should be after them. So many people say to me: Why are they going after you on nothing and they leave Hillary Clinton alone on, you know, really major things? And it is – so I’m disappointed in him. And don’t forget, when they say he endorsed me, I went to Alabama. I had 40,000 people, you may have been there, remember, in Mobile?

WSJ: I remember.

TRUMP: I had 40,000 people. He was the senator from Alabama. I won the state by a lot, massive numbers. A lot of the states I won by massive numbers. But he was a senator. He looks at 40,000 people and he probably says, what do I have to lose, and he endorsed me. So it’s not like a great, loyal thing about the endorsement. But I’m very disappointed in Jeff Sessions.

WSJ: Are you willing for the status quo to continue, though? At what point do you say enough?

TRUMP: I’m just looking at it. I’ll just see.

WSJ: What about Bob Mueller?

TRUMP: It’s a very important, very important thing.

WSJ: I mean, but, Bob Mueller is also really the one leading this investigation. It’s his job to see –

TRUMP: Well, we’re going to see.

BAKER: And he’s investigating Russia – your Russian connection –

WSJ: He’s the Russian guy. So Sessions has recused himself, but is Bob Mueller’s job safe? There is speculation –

TRUMP: No, we’re going to see. I mean, I have no comment yet, because it’s too early. But we’ll see. We’re going to see. Here’s the good news: I was never involved with Russia. There was nobody in the campaign. I’ve got 200 people that will say that they’ve never seen anybody on the campaign. Here’s another – he was involved early. There’s nobody on the campaign that saw anybody from Russia. We had nothing to do with Russia. They lost an election and they came up with this as an excuse. And the only ones that are laughing are the Democrats and the Russians. They’re the only ones that are laughing. And if Jeff Sessions didn’t recuse himself, we wouldn’t even be talking about this subject.

WSJ: Would you consider –

TRUMP: You know, it was very interesting. Trey Gowdy said today – again, he’s a very straight shooter, he’s a good guy – he said, no, I understand the president. He was on Fox. He said: I understand the president. You put a man in office who really wanted that job. I actually said to him – and you know some of my lawyers, it’s not – you know, off the record, it’s not exactly – right? You know some of them.

BAKER: I know Marc quite well.

TRUMP: Well, but a lot of them. But I put a man in office – and he said this. And he goes in office, then he immediately recuses himself. I fully understand the president. You know, and a lot of people do, a lot of people. He – you know, I don’t go to loyalty. I think it’s disloyal to the office of the presidency, not necessarily me. I think it’s very disloyal to the office of the presidency. And if he didn’t do that, you wouldn’t have all this stuff. You know, you wouldn’t have it.

So, just a couple of things before we finish. Just – I’m sure you love Stuart Varney. But he just came out, $4 trillion in value in the stock market. RNC has more than 80 million in cash, whereas the Democrats owe money, OK, although they’re trying to come up with their new campaign. Trust me, it won’t work. And I said it the last time (and I was wrong ?). Immigration went down 78 percent at the border – 78 percent at the border. Kelly’s done a great job.

BAKER: You going to veto the Russian sanctions legislation?

TRUMP: Well, I haven’t seen them yet. I haven’t seen them in final form. I will say this, Congress, if they’re going to negotiate, they make the worst deals I’ve ever seen. They made NAFTA. They made – you know, they allowed the Iran deal to go through.

WSJ: You said you’re opposed –

TRUMP: I make good deals. I don’t make bad deals. I make good deals. So, but, I haven’t made my – I have not seen them. I have to see.

By the way, a lot of things have taken place in that agreement that are a lot different from what it was two weeks ago – a lot of things.

BAKER: You also – you brought in Anthony, obviously. Are you planning other changes – are you planning other changes in the White House? After you brought in Anthony, are you planning other changes?

TRUMP: I mean, we’ll see. We’ll see. I do say this, I believe we’ve done more than just about any president of the United States in six months. And I was going to tell you before, so a lot of times I’ll turn on television or I’ll read in The Wall Street Journal, right –

WSJ: Thank you.

TRUMP: – what’s Trump doing? He hasn’t produced health care. I’m not even six months yet, right? So these guys went eight years – Hillary Clinton, eight years, got nothing. Obama went a year and a half, almost two years, and they had to sell their soul. They had to give away the state of Nebraska in order to buy that vote. And that was two years. I’m six months. They got to give me a little break, OK? And today we’re having a big vote, and we’ll see what happens. But today’s vote is big, because once you get in – once you’re allowed to talk a lot of –

BAKER: But we can’t expect any more staff changes in the immediate – in the immediate future?

TRUMP: No, I don’t think so.

BAKER: No?

TRUMP: But I’m very happy with Anthony. I think Anthony is going to do amazing.

WSJ: Would you consider pardons, Mr. President, given the investigation is –

TRUMP: You know what? I don’t even think of pardons. Here’s why, nobody did anything wrong. Look at Jared, everybody – we do appreciate the editorial – but everybody said Jared Kushner. Jared’s a very private person. He doesn’t get out. I mean, maybe it’s good or maybe it’s bad what I do, but at least people know how I feel. Jared’s this really nice, smart guy, who’d love to see peace in the Middle East and in Israel, OK?

WSJ: Gerry, yeah, Gary and are bouncers from – (inaudible). (Laughter.)

BAKER: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

WSJ: Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks.

WSJ: Tom Barrack as Mexican ambassador?

TRUMP: I’m thinking about it. What do you think? Do you like him?

WSJ: Yeah.

TRUMP: Tom Barrack, yes? Call him up, tell him I’m giving it to him. [Laughter.]

And now back to our alternate in-flight movie:

Elaine: Ladies and gentlemen, this is your stewardess speaking... We regret any inconvenience the sudden cabin movement might have caused, this is due to periodic air pockets we encountered, there's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight... By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?

[johnu]

RedSpawn, on 2017-August-01, 11:47, said:

Didn't Trump own a business known as Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. and wasn't it a CASINO as in the gaming business.

I mentioned that some of the businesses controlled by Trump could occasionally have large cash transactions. In any case, all this talk about business cash transactions is totally irrelevant since you were on a rampage about Trumps personal tax returns.

To summarize,

Personal/Individual tax returns <=> Corporate tax returns

And it may well be that the Special Counsel investigation will also target the various Trump business entity tax returns and business records which are not personal, unless you subscribe to the theory that corporations are people too.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-22, 13:30, said:

The US government does not vett presidential candidates; however, the press does. This time, the genuine press was ignored in favor of propaganda-producing social media, aided by Russia bots. Trump certainly has a spotted history and has had his run-ins with law enforcement but has thus far remained unscathed. https://www.theatlan...candals/474726/

And this.

This is a clusterf%%k. We don't vet Trump until he does the unthinkable. When the carnival barker & vulgar yet disgusting snake oil salesman wins the federal election THEN we let the witch hunt and special investigator Mueller loose to really do what should have been done on some level during the Presidential campaign season. Asking to pull Trump's personal tax forms and peruse all of his banking account activity because of the Kushner scandal doesn't make sense because no one has shown that President Trump directly had colluded with the Russians.

Innuendo is nice and guilt by association is an even more persuasive logical fallacy but I can't prosecute or indict or call a special investigator or subpoena bank records for Hillary or her foundation for the unseemly unethical behavior of her husband with Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix tarmac. Therefore, unless there is proof that President Trump directly had colluded with Russia, why does a special investigator want Trump's personal bank records to prove that money laundering exists when he doesn't have probable cause that Trump has laundered money?

Bill is a disbarred lawyer who allegedly knows the law and knows that the secret rendezvous with Lynch was ex parte communication and a violation of the McDade-Murtha Amendment, but even so, I can't attribute his culpability in this matter to Hillary, even if deep down I believe they are One.

Let's remember when this occurred, Lynch didn't recuse herself from the server investigation but agreed to accept the results of the FBI investigation. She also didn't launch a special investigation to get to the bottom of her own professionally unethical behavior at that Phoenix tarmac. That's the beauty of being an Attorney General. You aren't legally obligated to investigate your own transgression and professional misconduct.

We are forced to accept her narrative that she was meeting with her former boss in the dark of night to discuss family and old times. Sigh!

Show me the smoking gun or probable cause that Trump DIRECTLY laundered money with Russians and then I will understand the personal bank records witch/warlock hunt we seem to be launching.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-August-03, 02:05, said:

<lots of rubbish>

You appear to have missed "reductio ad absurdum" from your list. An example of this might be arguing that one may not try to gather evidence of a possible crime unless one has in advance enough evidence to show guilt.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-03, 03:31, said:

You appear to have missed "reductio ad absurdum" from your list. An example of this might be arguing that one may not try to gather evidence of a possible crime unless one has in advance enough evidence to show guilt.

We can't get to guilt or innocence until you first establish probable cause which is a legal standard that must be met to gather evidence protected by the Fourth Amendment in the 1st place.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. Where is the probable cause?

Make the case that you have probable cause that Trump directly has laundered money with the Russians. I would love to hear the basis for a subpoena request of his banking records for say, the last 5 years. I'm all ears....

[RedSpawn]

mike777, on 2017-July-30, 19:43, said:

sigh yet another puff piece this time by NBC news tonight on their sunday magazine show regarding my old home town of Chicago and the increasing violence, yes somehow increasing, in my old home town of Chicago. Long on wishes, hope, very long on emotion, short on actual facts or science on what may improve the situation. Yet another shoddy piece of what passes for journalism, when it comes to Chicago.

http://www.nbcchicag...-437663683.html

You want analytics and deep analysis from fluff journalism?

[RedSpawn]

mike777, on 2017-August-01, 11:30, said:

The Huxtables were the exception. How many babies are born out of wedlock? How many families are single parent homes?

Again if we are going to have a race discussion as a first step lets define and use a standard of measurement to define race or is race self defined not something we are born to and unchangeable

I mean we all have ancient ancestors from Africa...

Mike,

We can discuss the ideology of race, but we can't have a serious discussion about this notion until the United States acknowledges that it has consistently depended on a permanent underclass to subsidize and fuel the entrepreneurial spirit and growth of this nation. Through the institution of slavery, African-Americans were earmarked from the 1700's as a viable permanent underclass who were initially denied education, provided horrendous living conditions, denied any legal standing in courts since they were chattel property, and were provided leftover pig entrails as "nutritious food" for a day's work.

America has to admit that up until the late 1860's, it was quite comfortable institutionalizing the subjugation of a group of people based solely on their skin color and legally requiring that they (and their children and their children's children) provide their labor FREE OF CHARGE for the greater economic prosperity of this nation.

It took a CIVIL WAR to end slavery. Lincoln said he freed slaves to preserve the Union not for a higher moral reason such as all men are created equal (See quote at end of post). How long do you think it would take for the nation to change its deeply ingrained attitudes about these 'colored' people who were the cause of so much consternation, civil unrest, and war?

First, it was slavery which provided America with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of FREE labor to build the nation (and cultivate plantations) from the late 1700's up to the Civil War. Then in the South, after Reconstruction, you had 100 years of Jim Crow and persistent segregation to protest the federal government freeing slave labor and meddling with the political structure of sanctioned slavery and racism in the South. How dare the federal government reclassify chattel property (slaves with no legal standing in court) and grant them second-class citizenship and a chance at the American dream?

Once the sovereign federal government sanctioned this peculiar institution for almost 100 years and also sanctioned 2nd class citizen of African-Americans for another 100 years between 1860's to 1960's, exactly what type of mindset would one expect the larger society to have about these people who were, in part, the cause of this nation's civil unrest?

Let me repeat, 100 years of slavery and 100 years of 2nd class citizenship through the 1960's. Would a reasonably prudent person expect the population to eliminate their cultural biases about race, power, class, superiority, and inferiority overnight or even in three generations (60 years)?

With the stroke of a pen by Abraham Lincoln, chattel property became destitute, impoverished citizens with no assets, no fiat currency, no wealth, no recompense, and definitely no forty acres, and no mule! Literally, most freed slaves didn't have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of as previous slaves couldn't even own homes. Property can't own property, remember? So what type of estate planning do prior slaves perform to help their future generations? Oh, that's right, freed slaves don't have estates, they used to be chattel property who worked for free on someone else's.

{sarcasm} And overnight, the nation embraced African-Americans with open arms into society because collectively the nation wanted them to be free and wanted them to have equal participation in the American dream such as living wage jobs, decent housing, adequate education and legal standing in civil and criminal courts.

Second, we have from the 1860's to 1960's where African-Americans were allegedly free citizens and no longer chattel property, but you have a nation that had gotten quite complacent and comfortable with exploiting that readily identifiable permanent underclass. Do you think hiring practices changed overnight? How did the institution of sharecropping pop up so fast in the South? Do you think industries realigned themselves to embrace these new 2nd class citizens whose prior work history was "SLAVE"? Do you think Wall Street and Main Street embraced these individuals for employment prospects, small business lending, and capital wealth building opportunities? Do you think unions quickly embraced these 'colored' citizens into their membership?

To make matters worse, in the South segregation prevailed unabated from the 1890s to the 1950s. After the 1890s, nearly all southern blacks lost their right to vote through measures such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and the white primary. For the next fifty years racial segregation prevailed, reinforced by disfranchisement, official coercion, and vigilante terror (ummm, lynching). In addition, starting in 1913 with the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who had close ties to the South, the federal government imposed racial segregation in government offices in Washington, D.C. So you can tell the public's sentiment about the 'colored' people's socioeconomic status post Civil-War. 'Colored folks' don't sit next to white folks in federal government offices and in Montgomery Alabama 'colored' folks need to sit at the back of the bus even though they paid the same fare as other races. And colored folks need to use different substandard restroom facilities from others. Old Dixie was not going to let go of her ethnic notions of race since she understood who was to be the permanent underclass in America. Old Dixie didn't have to terrorize 'colored people' with white hoods, white robes, and burning crosses to instill fear; she attacked their minds through institutional segregation.

What the federal government couldn't legislate and still can't legislate to this day is society's acquisition of attitudes about race and ethnic notions post segregation. The institution of slavery is long gone but the legacy of assigning ethnic notions of sex, power, poverty, politics, social class, and dare I say, intelligence to race remains.

Race is the white elephant in the room that most communities prefer not to discuss because it involves charged language and a shameful past that defies logic or any rational explanation for how an oppressed people wouldn't suffer post-traumatic stress disorder or develop a dangerous pathology under such long-term diabolical customs and traditions. Most citizens would rather soon forget that history existed, pretend as if the playing field in the game of life in America was always level among different races, and marvel at the amount of growing social dysfunction in the African-American family. One should look at this dysfunction through the lense of the cumulative effect that structural and persisting slavery and racism had and continue to make on the psyche, mindset, societal treatment, family bonding and development, and transferred wealth of a group of people whose ancestors were chattel property in this great nation.

Lincoln's Letter to Horace Grant

Quote

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. (bold and underline mine)

Source: http://www.abrahamli...hes/greeley.htm

Just a gentle reminder of the South's sentiment about accepting the Negro into its institutions.

[PassedOut]

People in the White House must be desperate to let everyone know that the boss is a useless, lying dolt: ‘This deal will make me look terrible’: Full transcripts of Trump’s calls with Mexico and Australia

Quote

Mexico Trump: Because you and I are both at a point now where we are both saying we are not to pay for the wall. From a political standpoint, that is what we will say. We cannot say that anymore because if you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that. I am willing to say that we will work it out, but that means it will come out in the wash and that is okay. But you cannot say anymore that the United States is going to pay for the wall. I am just going to say that we are working it out. Believe it or not, this is the least important thing that we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important talk about.

Quote

Australia Trump: Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.

Turnbull: With great respect, that is not right – It is not 2,000.

Trump: Well, it is close. I have also heard like 5,000 as well.

Turnbull: The given number in the agreement is 1,250 and it is entirely a matter of your vetting. I think that what you could say is that the Australian government is consistent with the principles set out in the Executive Order.

Trump: No, I do not want say that. I will just have to say that unfortunately I will have to live with what was said by Obama. I will say I hate it. Look, I spoke to Putin, Merkel, Abe of Japan, to France today, and this was my most unpleasant call because I will be honest with you. I hate taking these people.

And lots, lots more.

[Winstonm]

CNN is reporting today that Mueller has impaneled a Grand Jury and has started issuing subpoenas concerning the Trump Jr. meeting with the Russians.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-August-03, 06:20, said:

We can't get to guilt or innocence until you first establish probable cause which is a legal standard that must be met to gather evidence protected by the Fourth Amendment in the 1st place.

Is it? I am not American but I seem to remember a big fuss a few years back that probable cause is not required for accessing emails and bank records, only reasonable suspicion that the information accessed is part of some criminal activity.

I would not like to argue at what level Müller is at without having access to the same evidence as he has but I very much doubt he will overstep his bounds given the attention the investigation is certain to attract. I think a whitewash is much more likely than a witch hunt unless some hard evidence does turn up that cannot easily be ignored.

[mike777]

"Search warrant requirements
Police are required to have probable cause, to produce a sworn statement outlining what led to probable cause, the warrant must be particular in regards to the search (desirably leaving nothing to the discretion of the officer), and must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate"

Some things don't need a search warrant.

There are other ways to legally demand/compel information, etc.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2017-August-03, 18:35, said:

Some things don't need a search warrant.

...such as obtaining emails and bank records...?

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-03, 16:33, said:

Is it? I am not American but I seem to remember a big fuss a few years back that probable cause is not required for accessing emails and bank records, only reasonable suspicion that the information accessed is part of some criminal activity.

I would not like to argue at what level Müller is at without having access to the same evidence as he has but I very much doubt he will overstep his bounds given the attention the investigation is certain to attract. I think a whitewash is much more likely than a witch hunt unless some hard evidence does turn up that cannot easily be ignored.

http://www.federalcr...search-warrant/

It says probable cause is needed for search warrants of bank records involving federal crimes.

https://en.m.wikiped...ng_Control_Act. Money laundering is a federal crime.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-03, 16:25, said:

CNN is reporting today that Mueller has impaneled a Grand Jury and has started issuing subpoenas concerning the Trump Jr. meeting with the Russians.

Has he subpoenaed President Trump in this matter?

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-August-04, 00:52, said:

It says probable cause is needed for search warrants of bank records involving federal crimes.

My understanding is that it depends on what information is being seized. For some information the hurdle for such a warrant is reasonable suspicion and not probable cause; for the rest probable cause is usually (but not always) required. Additionally, I do not believe that the person affected has to be informed by law enforcement for the information to be obtained. You might try googling the term "special inquiry judge" to find out about one way of initiating the procedure (a grand jury is more common and also possible). Perhaps your confidence in the 4th has less justification than you thought...