STEM School students walked out of a vigil tonight after @RepJasonCrow & @SenatorBennet spoke. Students said their grief was being politicized. They later returned, took the mic, and some said they didn't want to be used to promote gun control. #copolitics #9NEWS— Kyle Clark (@KyleClark) May 9, 2019
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Eventually people just get sick of it...
Not just the school shootings, but the blatant politicizing of these events
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
@willchamberlain
In the 1950’s, restaurants “had every right” to deny you service because of your race.
Hotels “had every right” to deny you service because of your sex.
Until we recognized that those things are civil rights and changed the law.
Platform access is a civil right.
Unrestricted access to a high capacity, semi automatic weapons, without background checks is not a civil right.
still peddling the "gun show loophole" lie alky?
at least you're consistent.
ah ha.
i was wondering where the alky ripped off the "trump eats your soul" bullshit. i knew from his track record of plagiarism that it could not have been his own.
turns out it was stolen from traitor comey -
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/william-barr-testimony.html?module=inline
James Comey and most liberals have very little soul left since the 2016 election. They blame Trump for their own emotions, problems, and actions.
Comey's main issue (if you read the piece) appears to be that while "he" had enough "soul" to break the law with illegal leaks to combat the "outrageous behavior" of Trump... that William Barr has had his soul eaten, largely because William Barr keeps following law.
We see it first hand here with people like Roger. It's not "just" that Roger is continuously in a state of complete meltdown over every action, every statement, every tweet, everything the President does. He is entitled to be as triggered as he wants, and can live his life in perpetual personal phycotic unrest.
But what really really really gets his goat.
What really triggers him into a blinding rage that turns his skin blue.
Is that there are people out there who are not as angry as he is. There are people who actually just live their lives like we actually have a great economy, and things are getting better.
It drives him absolute batshit crazy to believe that the rest of the world does not share his mind numbing blind hatred of Donald Trump.
So in the twist fucked up logic of people like James Comey (or lesser folk like Roger) - being driven to do things like break the law over political disagreement is what you "should" be doing. Those who have not been triggered to act in bizarre (and sometimes illegal) fashion and actually follow normal laws and procedures are the ones who have had their "souls eaten".
Fucked up is too generous of a description.
be that while "he" had enough "soul" to break the law with illegal leaks to combat the "outrageous behavior" of Trump.
And you see nothing wrong with barr saying since there is no underlying crime....obstruction of justice cannot exist....Why are you such a fucking trump slurping hypocrite ??????
The whole story which was edited by Lil Scotty to make his bias valid...Seems kids walked out, but really were given the opportunity to speak which is what they wanted,.....And you wonder why I think Lil Scotty has his head up trumps old fat white ass!!!!
OVEK,ABC News 17 hours ago
rest of story below
School honors hero student who stopped Colorado gunman
Colorado students walk out as school shooting vigil turns political originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
A vigil held Wednesday evening to recognize the victims and heroes of the shooting earlier this week at a Colorado high school turned into a political protest after some students in attendance expressed frustration with the tone and focus of the speeches.
According to local news reports, a group of students walked out of the event, organized by a local chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, after hearing speeches from members of the community, including activists and elected officials like Senator Michael Bennet, a Democratic presidential candidate, and Rep. Jason Crow, who represents the district where Tuesday's shooting took place.
Both Bennet and Crow were invited by the Brady Campaign to speak at the event, which took place at a nearby high school, and also attended another vigil Wednesday night at a nearby church.
(MORE: Deadly Colorado school shooting revives memories of past tragedies)
Speakers at the event, which honored Kendrick Castillo, the 18-year-old who was killed protecting his fellow classmates at the STEM School in Highlands Ranch, also talked about the need to take action in the wake of another tragic school shooting and reform the nation's gun laws.
"I know our kids already have enough to do, they have a job to do when they come to school, you have a job to do when you come to school," Bennet, the former Superintendent of the Denver Public Schools, said before praising Castillo's bravery. "Their job is not to fix America's broken gun laws. Their job is not, as Kendrick so selflessly did yesterday, to give up their own life to save their classmates lives. Or the teachers' lives. That's not their job."
PHOTO: Sen. Michael Bennet speaks during a candlelight vigil at Highlands Ranch High School on May 8, 2019 in Highlands Ranch, Colo. (Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images)
"You sent me to Washington to speak the truth. So here it is – we are failing. We are failing when this happens over and over and over and over again and nothing happens," Crow, a gun owner and former Army Ranger elected to Congress last year, said. "You already have my thoughts and prayers, but you deserve and should demand more. Because to only send thoughts and prayers when you're a member of Congress or when you're in a position to take action and to affect change, it is empty, it is hollow, and you and your children deserve more."
Balance of above
On Thursday, Crow spoke with ABC News' Senior Washington Reporter Devin Dwyer about the protest, saying he supported the students' demand that they be given a chance to speak.
"It was a very emotional night, which I completely understand, these are students that had just gone through a horrific tragedy...And it became apparent halfway through the event that they weren’t being given an opportunity to speak," Crow said.
"So they stood up, as they should have, and demanded an opportunity to speak, and I supported that. I stayed late until every student was heard and had their opportunity to tell us how they felt about this issue and just express that emotion. So it was really important that we keep the focus on the students," he added.
PHOTO: Young people console each other during a community vigil to honor the victims and survivors of a fatal shooting at the STEM School Highlands Ranch, late Wednesday, May 8, 2019, in Highlands Ranch, Colo. (David Zalubowski/AP)
The tenor of the vigil seemed to shift after some in the audience began to express frustration that the event was not solely focused on remembering the heroes and victims of the shooting.
"This can be an incredibly divisible or painful or awful time, or it can be a time when we come together," another speaker at the event told the packed gymnasium.
After a number of speeches, one student in the audience shouted "Let STEM kids speak!" and video from the event from ABC News affiliate KMGH showed students chanting "Mental Health," as they left the event and gathered in the parking lot outside the gym.
Denny...
There was no underlying crime, so I have no problem with Barr telling the truth.
In the opinion of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General of Legal Counsel, the 10 instances cited by Mueller were not obstruction.
The collective opinion of the DOJ was that most of the items were not even criminal by definition. In other words, even if they were true and could be proven in a court, they did not constitute a criminal act by definition.
The couple that actually addressed issues that could be seen as criminal (McGahn & Cohen witness tampering) did not have enough evidence to pursue them.
Barr was asked several times by Democratic Senators regarding his opinions, and every time he provided lucid logical legal arguments that none of the Senators were able to challenge.
So if that is the general consensus of the top legal minds, sitting in the top legal positions, with every and all authority to make the call, then I have no problem with them providing that opinion.
In fact... as much as this makes your head explode!
It's their job! That's what they do! They are the ultimate authority!
I am more impressed by that, then when Lynch decided not to weigh in on the Hillary situation, and then the fuck up James Comey decided to provide his opinion (contrary to all rules and regulations) that he had no actual authority to call.
Clinton ignored FBI subpoenas, destroyed evidence, tampered with witnesses, lied to Congress, and possibly to investigators (although her interview was not recorded). There was no talk of obstruction there, even though she clearly committed the actions of well known prosecutable obstruction.
Not the made up crap that's never been prosecuted before from the Mueller report. Trying to stop investigation evidence from being given to the media is obstruction? Firing James Comey was obstruction? Please... just plain silly.
There was no underlying crime, so I have no problem with Barr telling the truth.
BWAAAAAAA!!!!!! IOW's obstruction should be rewritten to include that!!!!!! You are certainly no law expert, just a trump apologist who thinks running slipshod over his people is a good thing.....directing his people to do things that are illegal but did not in your simple mind is okay....TOO FUCKING FUNNY!!! Clinton has nothing to do with this BS and conflating her with abject actions that were infinitely worse than deleting personal emails is bullshit...Keep digging, you go NOTHING but stupid!!!
So Denny...
Just so I understand it.
These kids (who had just been through a shooting) - are not capable of knowing why they walked out? They say that they walked out because the event got politicized...
and now people are saying that the kids were wrong about what they really wanted? That all they really wanted was to speak, and since they got that opportunity, that they should not have walked out?
Funny how that works.
These kids are not even allowed to decide for themselves what they should be upset about?
Denny...
"Second , unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime , the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."
The reality is that it matters to both investigators, prosecutors, an Attorney Generals. Nobody (certainly not Barr) has suggested that you need an underlying crime to charge obstruction.
They are all just suggesting that the bar is raised to an extremely high mark, when there is no provable motivation to hide any crimes. At that point, every possible alternate motive becomes more plausible.
It's simple logic!
brennan'sorangejumpsuit
@15poundstogo
Lot's of documented (actual documents) of obstruction of justice here.
Excellent browse for truth seekers...
@BuckSexton
Buck Sexton Retweeted Tom Elliott
This is utterly insane. Acting like a single sourced, unvetted tip from some foreign rando overseas is *enough to justify FBI spying on a US presidential campaign* is totally bonkers.
Comey is a sanctimonious fraud. And the walls are closing in on him.
Comey is actually scared shitless of the soon to be released IG report, and it shows. The left will see what real shoes dropping looks like.
Nobody (certainly not Barr) has suggested that you need an underlying crime to charge obstruction.
Did you not see his testimony to the senate....or what he wrote???? Provided below and the actual law..... Are you that blind???? Suggest you go back to school and become a lawyer....you seem to want to be one and maybe a professor can beat some sense into you....
In summarizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian election interference, Attorney General Bill Barr said there were two major questions the investigation examined: whether there was coordination or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether President Donald Trump sought to obstruct justice. The report did not establish coordination or collusion.
That lack of proof on collusion is one of the reasons for not pursuing an obstruction-of-justice prosecution, Barr said: There was no underlying crime from Russia connections for Trump to cover up.
While Barr said this wasn’t the only factor that played into the decision about whether to prosecute, he explicitly cited it as one of them.
In the 24 hours after the Barr letter was released, we noticed a lot of cable TV debate about whether someone can or can’t be tried for obstructing justice if there is no underlying crime. Put another way, can you obstruct justice if there was theoretically nothing to obstruct? We decided to take a closer look.
We checked with 11 legal experts to nail down answers. Essentially all of these experts agreed that obstruction can indeed be prosecuted without an underlying crime — and has been in the past, notably in the case of Martha Stewart.
Several experts added, however, that there are some important distinctions between these historical precedents and what Mueller found. So the debate (sorry) will likely continue.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/
nder 18 U.S.C. 73 there are 21 general categories that are considered obstruction of justice. Section 1503 reads: “Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, . . . or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished. . . .”
Reading that statute it is clear no underlying crime need to exist. Nor does is it make any sense there would have to be an underlying crime. Having done investigations I know that sometimes the investigation will lead to the conclusion that no crime has been committed. Let’s look at it in more simple terms by me describing situations I handled but adding to it a letter by Bill Rodney.
http://mattofboston.com/do-you-need-an-underlying-crime-to-obstruct-justice-50815/
Just so I understand it.
These kids (who had just been through a shooting) - are not capable of knowing why they walked out?
That is what you got out of that???? No wonder why I think you are more fucked up that the beaner hater!!!!! Sorry Lil Scotty.....they wanted a voice and that was the reason for the walk out which really was not what you portrayed......sad how simple news can be twisted as badly as you have.....No use explaining anything to you or posting actual stories since you have a closed trump infested mind.....
Thanx for playing CH....proving you a liar is very satisfying......LOLOLOL
arr wrote, “After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to established that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” In making this determination, the attorney general noted that the president was “not involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that “the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.”
Allow me to translate. The president is guilty of obstruction the way an innocent person is guilty of being outraged by an interminable and intrusive investigation that leaves the stench of accusation in the air for two years. Barr makes the salient point that when a person is innocent of the underlying crime, it’s pretty hard to make a case that his protestations against the investigation are an obstruction.
Post a Comment