Thought for the Day

I guess bein' white ain't all its, er, cracked up to be....unless you live in Texas...

"the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War specifically stipulated that Hispanics who became citizens be considered white, as Texas was a state where it was legal to enslave Black people. Growing up, my right-wing Ronald Reagan-loving dad used to tell me about the old saying, “if you’re white you’re all right, if you’re brown, stick around. If you’re Black, you go back,” which I took as only apocryphal until I heard a song by the bluesman Big Bill Broonzy that had the exact phrase." "


Keep on Tuckin' -!

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/voices-lat...212317955.html

This tweet contains quotations from a recent Trump interview. This is why Trump was an existential threat to the US. He's a moron but he's also the most despicable person I've seen in American public life.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1496221147729481732

I won't both sides this since Trump was President and what he's done is worse but prolific tweeter AOC has tweeted nothing about this conflict and apparently hasn't tweeted the word Russia since 2019. She's an idiot.

Tulsi Gabbard? I'm not sure her political affiliation. Bernie said something negative about Russia and has now been called a "neo-liberal centrist" by many of his fans with large followings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I won't both sides this since Trump was President and what he's done is worse but prolific tweeter AOC has tweeted nothing about this conflict and apparently hasn't tweeted the word Russia since 2019. She's an idiot.

Tulsi Gabbard? I'm not sure her political affiliation. Bernie said something negative about Russia and has now been called a "neo-liberal centrist" by many of his fans with large followings.

---

Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat and one time was accused by Hillary Clinton of being groomed as a Russian asset. Outside looking in, I just think she is someone who is going to question United States foreign policy whenever she gets the chance. Especially if its going to lead to United States armed forces going into combat.

As for Bernie, its amazing how quickly one's followers can turn on them if they say something that goes against their beliefs.

AOC probably stop tweeting about Russia around the same time the Mueller report didn't lead to Trump being impeached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I won't both sides this since Trump was President and what he's done is worse but prolific tweeter AOC has tweeted nothing about this conflict and apparently hasn't tweeted the word Russia since 2019. She's an idiot.

Tulsi Gabbard? I'm not sure her political affiliation. Bernie said something negative about Russia and has now been called a "neo-liberal centrist" by many of his fans with large followings.

---

Not sure why you are upset that AOC doesn't tweet about Russia, must she tweet about everything? Has she tweeted anything on Boris Johnson? He was born in her city, and if he revives his US citizenship in the future, he can run for the Presidency. From what little we get here, she seems to be good at some things, maybe lacking in others. Or, she is best known for being the target of some odious drivel from Trump and his supporters, which may explain her popularity. If Tucker Carlson spends so much time attacking her, she is clearly important to him.

As for Tulsi Gabbbard, is she important?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Not sure why you are upset that AOC doesn't tweet about Russia, must she tweet about everything?

---

No but this is not the type of thing a U.S Rep should be silent about in my view. It strikes me as concern that if she condemns Russia she will get backlash from certain segments of the left who view condemnation of Russia or China as inherently suspicious. That bothers me. I don't think she has been silent because she has not considered the issue but is actually concerned that if she supports sanctions on Russia she will be called a warmonger.

Russia is trying to claim regions of Ukraine and is on the verge of an assault that could kill thousands of people. The right wing is trying to justify this act. Certain segments of the left are fiddling with the idea that NATO and the right share culpability. When I say certain segments of the left I mean a lot of the people who previously supported Bernie Sanders and some who supported Tulsi Gabbard. I don't think Tulsi is incredibly important but she is an example of someone who really defies easy categorization politically and has developed a cult following.

I certainly don't want U.S. troops to fight. But I am certain I support the sanctions against Russia that Biden is levying.

As an addendum to the last post in case this goes to the next page I agree with Bernie Sanders' statement on this. This is not brinksmanship or incitement but multilateralism in action. The comments show that a lot of his supporters view this as a betrayal. Why?
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/statu...25554588213248

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

No but this is not the type of thing a U.S Rep should be silent about in my view. It strikes me as concern that if she condemns Russia she will get backlash from certain segments of the left who view condemnation of Russia or China as inherently suspicious. That bothers me. I don't think she has been silent because she has not considered the issue but is actually concerned that if she supports sanctions on Russia she will be called a warmonger.

Russia is trying to claim regions of Ukraine and is on the verge of an assault that could kill thousands of people. The right wing is trying to justify this act. Certain segments of the left are fiddling with the idea that NATO and the right share culpability. When I say certain segments of the left I mean a lot of the people who previously supported Bernie Sanders and some who supported Tulsi Gabbard. I don't think Tulsi is incredibly important but she is an example of someone who really defies easy categorization politically and has developed a cult following.

---

I am puzzled, why woud the 'left' want to restrain themselves from criticising a regime of the kind Putin presides over? He might have been a member of the Communist Party at one time, I suspect if he was it was because of his membership of the KGB and it made sense in career terms, I doubt he ever cared one way or another for Marxism-Leninism. Moreover, of this 'left' of which you speak is anti-war, by definiton they must condemn Putin's actions.

Plus, approx. 14,000 have already been killed since the Russians annexed eastern Ukraine, including the passengers on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for whom nobody has yet been held responsible.

Broncofan, can you clarify a legal point please? It relates to this report on Rudolph Giuliani giving evidence to the Jan 6 Committee, but only if it does not violate 'Attorney-Client' confidentiality.

This is the passage I refer to-

"...the former president’s attorney has indicated that he will assist the select committee only if his appearance is not pursuant to his subpoena, and does not have to give records or discuss his contacts with Trump over executive and attorney-client privilege concerns.

Giuliani is prepared to make exceptions in instances where the panel can demonstrate that meetings with Trump that would have otherwise been subject to those protections might have been broken, and that the protections should not apply."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ry-6-committee

1) Can you clarify this -am I right in saying that Trump must formally instruct, or for this evidence, have formally instructed Giuliani to act as his Attorney with an agreed fee, and that this must be documented? In other words, neither could just say 'He is my lawyer'? Is it also the case that a lawyer cannot work without charging a fee? I seem to recall there was speculation that Giuliani said he was Trump's lawyer when he was in the Ukraine when he might not have been formally instructed to act for Trump who was President at the time.

2) Is Attorney-Client 'privilege' a legal means whereby a criminal can reveal his crimes to a lawyer, knowing the lawyer will never present the evidence of crimes, or confessions to crimes to a court of law? When if ever can a lawyer be compelled to reveal to a Court what he knows a client has done, or has said.

Stavros I can answer a couple of the questions off the top of my head. Other aspects of it I might have to look up.
I don't think there needs to be a contract or a fee paid for the privilege to attach (there are a few reasons for this, though a fee or contract would definitely help establish the relationship). I think what you're getting at is that someone should not be able to claim privilege from communications with a co-conspirator simply because that person happens to be an attorney.

The question is whether that person was seeking the counsel of the attorney in a professional capacity and on that subject matter. Did the attorney simply provide legal advice (and nothing more) and was he engaged by Trump as an attorney for that matter?

The attorney client privilege is waived for communications in which third parties are present. So even if they can claim some communications were privileged between them, it would not apply to anything in which a non-privileged party was in the room for.

There are exceptions to the attorney client privilege where compelled disclosure may be permitted. One is the crime fraud exception. If the attorney's services are used to conceal the commission of a crime the privilege does not apply. This would be that the attorney did not merely offer advice about what is legal or illegal but perhaps helped a client take an illegal course of action and cover his actions. https://www.justia.com/criminal/work...aud-exception/

In addition to attorney client privilege there is something called the duty of confidentiality for attorneys that will often attach even to preliminary discussions between a client and his attorney. Though this also only protects information that is confidential and which no other parties are privy to.