It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama speech undercuts federal charge for judge's murder

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I guess what I was getting at is that my neighbor that is pro-life, thinks Jesus hates gay people, and views anyone non-white as a threat has a very different viewpoint on so many things than I do. We are not the same. Whatever labels people need to affix in order to understand that difference is up to them I guess but to suggest that my recognizing that I lean a bit left to my fascist bible thumping neighbor is naive strikes me as insulting. Because people want to proclaim Obama as Bush 2.0 that does not change the fact that in the real world there are different people with different views on many things. Now I can choose a great many different ways to describe their poly-sci philosiphy in juxtaposition to mine but luckily we alread have well defined and recognized terms that do that succinctly :left and right, liberal and conservative. I take exception to the suggestion that I need to evolve to a place where me and my asshat neighbor are aligned. There is no need for us to be.

Aside from that, there is an ATS theme that is getting really old and it reads like this. "All you left/right idiots are just falling for a ruse. There is no such thing as left or right. It is all a trick. By the way, YOU LIBERALS......"

Yeah, that is getting old.




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 



So the reasoning of why the judge was there, even if it was for a photo op, could be construed as business of the federal government.

BUT, with the President stating that he was there to see his friend, this does not allow a federal prosecution then.


I still don't see the issue. He can both be going to see his friend...and doing a photo op...and be considered "business".

I really don't think this is going to be an issue at the trial.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I guess what I was getting at is that my neighbor that is pro-life, thinks Jesus hates gay people, and views anyone non-white as a threat has a very different viewpoint on so many things than I do. We are not the same. Whatever labels people need to affix in order to understand that difference is up to them I guess but to suggest that my recognizing that I lean a bit left to my fascist bible thumping neighbor is naive strikes me as insulting. Because people want to proclaim Obama as Bush 2.0 that does not change the fact that in the real world there are different people with different views on many things. Now I can choose a great many different ways to describe their poly-sci philosiphy in juxtaposition to mine but luckily we alread have well defined and recognized terms that do that succinctly :left and right, liberal and conservative. I take exception to the suggestion that I need to evolve to a place where me and my asshat neighbor are aligned. There is no need for us to be.

Aside from that, there is an ATS theme that is getting really old and it reads like this. "All you left/right idiots are just falling for a ruse. There is no such thing as left or right. It is all a trick. By the way, YOU LIBERALS......"

Yeah, that is getting old.


If you have your personal views, that is perfect. That is what you should have. Now, stop identifying those views with an official political movement, because you are being had by those people.

When you discuss your views, discuss them in the context of you, not the political leaders. The political leaders are selling snake oil. Do not consider them when you consider your political views.

That is all i am saying. Your views are yours. You are an individual. Stand up, stand strong, and don't yield your identity to groupthink.

BTW, my "you liberals" emanates from the fact that I am talking to someone who idenfies themselves as such. Your offense to that is the very reason why it benefits you to not identify with a political group. You will carry and defend the baggage for the poor behavior of individuals within that group. THAT is where the "toxic political environment" stems from: people trying to show how their political ideology sucks less than the other one.
edit on 14-1-2011 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
If you have your personal views, that is perfect. That is what you should have. Now, stop identifying those views with an official political movement, because you are being had by those people.


Which people am I being had by? Please explain to stupid ol' me who is blowing air up my dress? I do not recally alligning myself with any political movement so please fill me in on what it is I do, think, and why.


When you discuss your views, discuss them in the context of you, not the political leaders. The political leaders are selling snake oil. Do not consider them when you consider your political views.


Which political leaders are you even talking about? My views are my views. Many of my views can be described as left as that is what the term is there for, to delineate.


That is all i am saying. Your views are yours. You are an individual. Stand up, stand strong, and don't yield your identity to groupthink.


Please, tell me exactly what else I should do as a strong individual. I await your orders.




BTW, my "you liberals" emanates from the fact that I am talking to someone who idenfies themselves as such. Your offense to that is the very reason why it benefits you to not identify with a political group. You will carry and defend the baggage for the poor behavior of individuals within that group. THAT is where the "toxic political environment" stems from: people trying to show how their political ideology sucks less than the other one.
edit on 14-1-2011 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


I am not sure you understood my point at all. Yes, I can describe myself as a liberal because I believe there is a difference. For someone to say there is no difference and then proceed to label me as one of those differnt categories makes no sense.

Get it? I can call myself left because I believe the word left describes my political ideology best.
If you tell me there is no such thing as a left, the next sentence should not begin by pointing out how left I am.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Thanks for backing up my point and the author of the article's point.

Obama stated the judge was there to see a friend. Not an act of doing government business, therefore the President could in all likelihood be subpoenaed to provide the source of this information.

Thanks rnaa for backing up my point.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by rnaa
 


Thanks for backing up my point and the author of the article's point.

Obama stated the judge was there to see a friend. Not an act of doing government business, therefore the President could in all likelihood be subpoenaed to provide the source of this information.

Thanks rnaa for backing up my point.


If that were the case then his entire time would be spent pointing to every news org. in the US that reported it days before he said it at the memorial service and the point of that would be? Are you really trying to get at something here or just so bent on criticizing Obama that you are willing to use this memorial service just to make up things to criticize? I swear I just read something about people who use things like this for political gain. What is the real purpose of this thread? The premise has been debunked, put to bed, killed, found more than lacking. Please, other than exploitation of a tragic event for the sole purpose of partisan bickering, what is the point?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by rnaa
 

Obama stated the judge was there to see a friend. Not an act of doing government business, therefore the President could in all likelihood be subpoenaed to provide the source of this information.

Thanks rnaa for backing up my point.


Not so fast Sherlock:

Slain Judge Roll Sought to Thank Giffords for Help With Court's Caseload



According to a Federal Bureau of Investigation statement filed with the criminal complaint, Roll had come to the meeting to talk to Giffords and her staff about the help she had provided trying to deal with growing volume cases in federal courts in Arizona. Roll was talking with one of Giffords’ aides before the shooting, according to the FBI statement.


Source

I'm an infovore.



edit on 14-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: tone it down



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

JEEZ



Let me say this again, in the President's speech, he said that the Judge was there to see his friend.

Does anyone know what discovery is?

kinda kurious, you are backing up my point also.

People, a COURT OF LAW is not the ATS discussion board.

The PRESIDENT of the united States made a statement broadcast to the NATION. The Sheriff made statements in regards to his OPINION what the cause of the attack was.

Now do you understand, that these TWO PEOPLE are in the authority of the government making statements about the FACTS of the CASE.

It does not MATTER what a paper or blog stated at ALL!

What do you people not understand about EVIDENCE? Or the opinion of people involved in an investigation or the OPINION of the PRESIDENT of the united States.

For all the discussion, you PROVED MY POINT.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Evidence is not opinion. The president's or anyone else's opinion is not evidence.

Evidence is what matters in a court of law, not hearsay.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Alright, where did the statement he made, come from?

Does the President's speech writers go around just making things up or copying things from the newspapers?

Or did the President himself decide to add that component to the speech?

See, this is called a deposition. Or cross examination.

Once a government official, acting in their capacity as an official make a statement regarding a case, they can and will be deposed for information.

Can NO ONE ever admit they were wrong or that someone else may be right?

Hmmmm?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


It's an opinion, everyone has one.

The potus can have an opinion and it does not affect the case AT ALL.

Because the president's words cannot be used as evidence in court, that would be hearsay and no court would allow it.

It's just the facts of law.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Where did he get his information? Also, because 32 million people saw the speech, that would eliminate those people that saw the speech as potential jurors because SOMEONE decided to politicize a tragedy. But hey, what is the big woopedy doo. It is just one federal charge.

WHAT WHAT WHAT you going to say now that words do not have any meaning? It is hearsay.

You going to begin to backtrack on things because of WHO the person is?

Here, let me get you a shovel, that hole you are digging is not quite deep enough.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


It might affect the jury pool, that can be a true statement there, and yes, there might be jurors who are dismissed because of it.

Still doesn't change the fact that the president's opinion does not affect the trial, and won't affect the outcome of that trial. Because that opinion is not admissible at trial.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Really, a President of the united States, acting in his position makes a speech. Doing this in his role in a government position, is now considered hearsay?

How bout the Sheriff? What he said as the lead government official in the county where the crime was committed, I suppose you are going to say his opinion and statements are hearsay also?

So, when any official of government makes a statement that is not a statement or opinion, it is hearsay?

I would love a lawyer to get into this thread.

Even if the President's statement was hearsay, the defense would still have the right to subpoena him to get the source of the information for the statement.

That would be kinda weird huh? The President gets subpoenaed to an assassination trial because he could not keep the totus shut. Hmmmm.

Very, very, VERRRRRRRRRRYYY Interesting.

Shoot, for two years he has attempted to stay out of court and he may find his sorry # in one now because he just had to politicize a murder. Oh well.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I have to say, you have quite the imagination there. You might want to consider writing fiction, because that's all you are doing here is writing fiction.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
The PRESIDENT of the united States made a statement broadcast to the NATION. The Sheriff made statements in regards to his OPINION what the cause of the attack was.

Now do you understand, that these TWO PEOPLE are in the authority of the government making statements about the FACTS of the CASE.

It does not MATTER what a paper or blog stated at ALL!

What do you people not understand about EVIDENCE? Or the opinion of people involved in an investigation or the OPINION of the PRESIDENT of the united States.

For all the discussion, you PROVED MY POINT.






I have to know exactly where you got your law degree because I would kind of like to become a medical doctor and I have an extra five bucks laying around here. Nothing in this post reflects reality or anything within the law in any way shape or form. This is just some anti-Obama fantasy that is barely standing on the wobbly legs of deluded hate as it is. Well, guess you just cant let a good memorial service go to waste.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


The president is not a law enforcement officer. What he says is hearsay as it relates to the AZ shootings. The premise of the OP is some of the most ridiculous speculation I have seen in quite some time. If the nature of it were different, i would swear that Olbermann himself concocted this duck.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
well for starters, i can safely say that nothing obama will say or do out of sheer stupidity will suprise me.
i mean come on, the guy called himself muslim, which theres nothing wrong in any way with that, whats Snip up is the guy interviewing him questioned him about it, and he "corrected" himself by claiming christianity.
HAHAHA, wut a freakin joke

FYI---google "the universal declaration of human rights" and read it...it'll be on the top



[Mod Edit - snip profanity]
Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 15/1/2011 by Sauron because: Snipped profanity



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Question, a person such as a President of the united States, makes a statement about the facts of the case that are relevant to whether or not a federal crime can be prosecuted, is not relevant?

Another, a Sheriff that has been an officer of the court, making a statement, is not admissable in a court of law?

Being that the President of the US is the highest officer in the Executive branch, would you not also think that their statements and opinion would be admissable in a court of law.

Like I said, I would like a lawyer's viewpoint on this. When an officer of the court makes statements in their duties, I would have to believe this to not fall under the normal hearsay rule.

Do you really know for a fact that it is? Can you give me a precedent or court case?

Just asking. A lot of people here certainly have an opinion, just no facts relevant to the case at hand.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Maybe looking at the charges will help?
USA vs. Jared

Judge Roll was notified about Congresswoman Giffords' event telephonically on or about January 7, 2011. having spoken to Pia Carusone, the Chief of Staff for Congresswoman Giffords in Washington D.C., U.S. Marshal Gonzales reports that Ron Barber, a staff person for Congresswoman Giffords who was present at the event, stated that Judge Roll attended the event and sought to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, and spoke with Mr. Barber about issues related to the volume of federal cases in the District of Arizona; Judge Roll expressed his appreciation to Mr. Barber for the help and support that COngresswoman Giffords had given. Your affiant reviewed a digital surveillance video depicting the events at the Safeway; in the video, Judge Roll is seen speaking for several minutes with Mr. Barber.


Nevermind that Obama was not giving sworn testimony but speaking at a public event. Apparently you think him being president changes how courts work. Well, then where are your facts and precidents? This is your premise and it makes little to no sense so anything you have to support might be nice.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join