You're off base.



The TLDR is that attourney client privelage doesn't cover illegal actions, *and* the warrants had to be signed off on by a judge *and* the DOJ person in charge of the investiagtion is a Trump appointee who had to allow the case to go forward (they could have said no) *and* a specific, special set of people go though the things and are *only* allowed to give over the things that pertain to the investigation as specified in the search warrant, law enforcement doesn't get to see anything that doesn't directly pertain to what they're looking for from those files, and if they talk about any of it they invalidate the investigation because evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in court, and on top of all of that, Muller isn't actually investigating it, he just referred the evidence he had to the people who will actually be doing so. Which is like, a faily normal thing? If someone is investigating alledged collusion with a forign government, peoples finances are going to be a part of that, and if he finds potential evidence of illegal activity, as long as he got it legally, that's sorta what you're supposed to do?

It is stupid and I don't know why anyone cares who trump slept with, but what you're seeing is not a fundamental breakdown of the justice system. If there is anybody for whom all of the proper legal protocals are actually followed, it's the wealthy and powerful.


Though the idea that there is an agenda to get rid of the second ammendment with a majority republican everything is sorta a stretch. It's *corperate* media. The fact is they're heavily biased towards sensationalism because they want whatever gets them the most eyes, and school shooting survivors turned activists makes for a good story. You don't hear failed attacks or attacks with just a few dead or injured because they failed. There are lots of them.

None of the US elections are especially legitimate, fwiw. Our voter turnout is abysmal because people have (rightly) figured out that for the most part politicians just ignore them, which only makes it easier for the politicians to ignore them, and if they think a particular group is likely to become loud they gerrymander the crap out of their voting base so they can ignore them too. Our system is fundamentally broken, or our current state (corrupt war mongering ancap social conservatives vs corrupt war mongering ancap social liberals as the only 2 options, both of whom are bought and paid for, often by the same companies) would never have become a thing.

I saw some social media meme about the liberal media sweeping the YouTube shooting under the rug because the attacker was female and Muslim. Because it didn't fit the agenda of white, Christian men. The idea being that white guys shooting up a place sells the "anti-gun" agenda better than anything else.

I responded as the person is one I think can have their ideas challenged. The idea that this incident was being kept silent to promote an "anti-gun" agenda is preposterous. It's actually the PERFECT story to say gun control legislation works. Long story short, the attacker in this case used a 9mm handgun and only managed to kill herself. Contrast this to incidents that have received more coverage where different weapons were used and you could easily paint a picture that limiting access to certain weapons leads to lower body counts. It's the exact counter needed to the argument that crazy people will always be crazy and hurt people. It's the answer of "that's true, so when these people snap it'd be nice if they took less of the rest of us with them."

All of this really to say I agree with Forum that it's typically the body count that determines how much press is dedicated to the story. Body counts sell and have always sold, no matter who is reporting. Taht's not to suggest different media outlets aren't biased (often heavily) by their own agendas. But with both sides looking to spin a story, neither side of the fence ran with that one and many others I can point to. And EVERY story can be spun for an agenda.

Coming back to the concept of Trump policies, it's his general policy (and those of his opponents, not just a Trump thing) to create divisiveness at every opportunity. Both sides of the fence have their own interests in mind and it's better served to have a "winner" whenever possible. In order to do that you need opponents and sides rather than collaboration and common sense.

Spinning it back to gun control since it's a major topic for all politicians, including Trump. The portrayal is "all guns" vs. "no guns" which is about as ludicrous a painting of our society as I've ever seen. It's frankly sad how many people buy the spin, though this is not a new thing. Quotes like "there's a sucker born every minute" aren't exactly new ones.

Anyway, while there are certainly fringes on both sides, the vast majority of Americans I've ever seen are in favor of weapon control in some form. I have yet to see the NRA lobby under the umbrella of "Nukes for ALL! It's the American Way. We designed them and dangnabbit we all deserve one!" All over our legislation is evidence that both sides of the political spectrum understand that free reign to weapons is a terrible idea. The conversation really needs to be about where to set the line rather than the "you started it" and "nuh uh" mentality our legislators seem to love.

In NY state, here are a list of weapons that simply owning could theoretically land me up to a year in jail:
-Butterfly knife
-Brass knuckles
-Cane Sword
-"Kung fu" stars (yes this is what the state calls them
-"Chuka sticks" (yes, yes...I know)
-Sand bag type club
-Billy club (aka "a small stick like old timey police used")
-Plastic knuckles (yes I'm serious)
-A wrist brace style slingshot

In the same subsection you'll find things like explosive ammunition and possessing a firearm, rifle or shotgun after certain felony convictions.

A lot of these items were added by preeeetty conservative legislators who happen to like the second amendment. So yeah, owning explosive bullets is the same crime as plastic knuckles and fancy looking sticks in the state of NY. Also "firearm" doesn't mean what you think it does. Firearms only refer to weapons that meet specific criteria. It's illegal for me to own a "firearm" in NY, but Wal-Mart will happily sell me a rifle or shotgun at any time. Because they're not "firearms" under our law.

What I'm getting at is that no matter which side of the fence you're on, many of our laws are in dire need of a good review and sprinkling of common sense. Under the policy of arguing that's been the standard for as long as I can remember, I'm not about to hold my breath.

I forgot one of my favorites from that bit of statutes. This is the same section outlawing fancy sticks mind you...

"He possesses any armor piercing ammunition with intent to use the
same unlawfully against another."

Note, it's totally cool to HAVE armor piercing ammunition according to my state. Aside from defining what it is, this is the ONLY mention of armor piercing ammunition in NY state law. You can have it...you just have to pinkie promise you won't shoot anyone else with it.

I assume this is due to the rash of deer wearing body armor that the hunters are struggling with. Speaking of body armor, it's illegal for me to wear it. Because I might wear it to conduct a dangerous crime so it's a bad idea. The good news is that I can level the playing field when conducting that crime by purchasing my armor piercing ammo ahead of time.

About the Cohen thing: I’m not talking from what I read online but what I know to be true. Have you ever been at a forensic image acquisition process? What do you know of e discovery, and how document and data analytics is handled? Do you know how responsive documents are marked, and by who? How about evidence handling protocols and such? And of course there's the fact that most judges are woefully ignorant of forensics and cannot understand even basic concepts such as a document backup.


It is because of that familiarity with what happens when evidence is collected, and specifically what happens when it is directly seized by police, that it is worrisome. Documents are not processed by hand by a few people, they are scanned, machine read and categorized with a huge error percentage, and police forces are notorious for overreaching, undermarking and even not turning over all documents. That is before you start with leaks. What was done to make this instance “legal” does not reject the precedent it is setting because everyone who is familiar with the process will see the danger it presents and how the outcome can be used many years from now for Terrible things.

Now onto some amazing news, anyone saw the North Korea peace rumors? Exciting! This is very very exciting!

Honestly I don't see a difference in the current Mueller investigation, and what happened with Nixon. So far, everything seems to be on the up and up, nothing shady going on with the actual investigation and any other court cases it may bring to light.

And I saw that bit about North and South Korea finally trying to end the war. I just don't see the situation there changing very much, as I expect the current regime in the North to remain, and not allow anyone to leave as outside ideas threaten it's existence. Let alone cleaning up the DMZ, which is littered with mines and traps.

I'd consider it a win if they just denuclearized...

Cas

I'd be happy if everyone denuclearized, honestly. But that won't happen, as we already opened those floodgates. Thankfully the threat of nukes is so far enough to keep anyone from using them.