Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


illinilaw08 last won the day on June 29

illinilaw08 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

21 Interesting

About illinilaw08

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Denver, CO

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Sox Minor League Affiliate
    Charlotte Knights (AAA)

Recent Profile Visitors

64 profile views
  1. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    BBC from 2017 with a list of potential Trump conflicts of interest. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069298 If you are concerned about conflicts of interest, I'm not entirely sure why you think Trump is clean... Also... Trump campaign spent over $13M at Trump properties since 2016. And, as a reminder, Trump did not divest himself of his interest in his businesses. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/394576-gop-government-groups-have-spent-161m-at-trump-org-properties-since-his
  2. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    Ha! Do you have access to the Clinton Foundation records? What you are accusing Saudi Arabia of doing is not illegal. It's not ideal (entities both foreign and domestic seeking access to politicians by virtue of donations to their campaigns or their charities are a problem), but it also isn't illegal unless it was directly to Clinton's campaign.
  3. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    Well, these are two separate issues. The first is the issue with the Clinton Foundation receiving donations from foreign entities. Is that great? No, it isn't. But I also don't see anything to suggest that it is illegal. The second is donations to campaigns. It is illegal for a foreign government (or individual) to donate to a campaign. If the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Campaign are one in the same, that would be a problem. If Saudi Arabia made direct contributions to the Clinton campaign, that would be a problem. I don't see any evidence to suggest either are true. But getting this back on track - Russia hacking the DNC in an effort to undermine Clinton and support Trump is infinite times worse than Saudi Arabia donating to the Clinton Foundation. Since the election, Donald Trump has been the most pro-Russia President of our lifetimes. You don't seem to care about that fact, but you sure care a lot about bad things you think Hillary Clinton did...
  4. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    Puts on nerd lawyer glasses - there is evidence that Putin has blackmail on Trump in the form of the Steele Dossier. Whether that evidence is credible is a completely different story. As to the other bold re: Saudi Arabia, do you have a cite for that? The closest that I can find is that Saudi Arabia donated to the Clinton Foundation. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html If that is what you are relying on, then it goes without saying that the Clinton campaign is a different entity than the Clinton Foundation. Trump has been much more pro-Russia than any President in our lifetimes. He has attacked NATO. He called the EU a foe. He has hand waved away the annexation of the Crimean Penninsula. And he repeatedly has accepted the word of Vladamir Putin over his own intelligence agencies regarding Russian interference in the last election. There are a lot of reasons that Donald Trump might do that, and some of those potential reasons are benign. But it does not change the fact that his policies have been harder on the EU and gentler on Russia than any President in our lifetime (and maybe since the War of 1812). Last thing here, you know that the allegations against Russia go beyond "some ads and e-mails." Russia hacked the DNC during the election for the benefit of Donald Trump (in one case attempting to phish Hillary Clinton the day after Trump asked Russia to do so at a campaign event per the Mueller indictments). That's a big deal.
  5. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    1) There is no evidence that the Obama administration was "surveiling" the Trump campaign. The FBI sent an informant to talk with Papadopolous, Page and Clovis as part of the Russia investigation that began in May of 2016. Very, very different things. https://www.npr.org/2018/05/24/614028376/fact-check-no-james-clapper-didnt-admit-there-was-spying-on-trump-campaign 2) The Russia stuff was never publicly an issue prior to the election because McConnell threatened to make the issue political (ie, make it look like the Obama administration trying to sink Trump). https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-russia-obama-joe-biden-359531 3) If the FBI had an "insurance policy" to stop Trump from being elected, they... did a really bad job of using that. And if the FBI's plan was to start investigating Trump after he was elected, when a Trump election probably meant the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, that was... and I can't stress this enough... the dumbest insurance policy ever and showcases a below fourth grade level understanding of civics. 4) Strozk is no longer a part of the Mueller investigation. And the Mueller investigation has indicted... a lot of people. Either they are all ethically compromised, or the more likely fact is true. They are doing their jobs, and we'll see what they ultimately uncover.
  6. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    I mean, we know that the Russia investigation started because George Papadopolous, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, told Australia's top US diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html We also know that Russia did in fact hack the DNC - the US intelligence community is unanimous in that assessment, and Mueller details it in pretty exhausting detail in the latest indictments. The full text of the indictment is available at the link below. https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17568806/mueller-russia-intelligence-indictment-full-text So, the Russia thing started in May of 2016. Russia did in fact attempt to influence the election to favor Trump over Clinton. And the investigation into the extent of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia remains ongoing... Now, what "Russia stuff" are you not buying?
  7. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    Re: the Mueller probe, the only thing that is specifically out there right now against Trump is in the most recent complaint against the Russians. They emphasize that the attempts to phish Hillary Clinton began immediately after Trump's infamous, "I will tell you this, Russia: If you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing." I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I don't know what mental state Mueller would have to prove to charge, but that's pretty solid circumstantial evidence that Russia listened to Trump. I doubt Trump intended for Russia to listen, but it's pretty grossly negligent conduct. But yeah, the idea that a sitting President is telling us that Putin and Kim Jong Un are good guys while going after NATO and the UN is pretty staggering. To echo NSS, diplomacy with Russia and North Korea and China is fine. But, he (1) acted tough with China and then unilaterally nixed enforcement against ZTE; (2) took a victory lap on a nuclear North Korea after giving Kim Jong Un the photo op he was looking for (note, since that summit, things have... not gone well with NK); and (3) took the word of Putin over the word of the US intelligence community regarding Russia's hacks of the DNC.
  8. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    Man, somebody should tell Mueller that I guess. Good thing Rabbit is here to set the record straight.
  9. illinilaw08

    2018 Democrats thread

    The quote that I lifted absolutely pertains. Crowley says in the article that he can't put himself on another ballot because of residency requirements. The quote says that election lawyers disagree with that stance. Now, maybe there's a law out there that says it is "a fraud of the electorate" to run for an office just to remove oneself from another ballot (for the record, if Crowley really is throwing his support behind Osacio-Cortez, isn't he committing "fraud of the electorate" by not removing himself from this ballot in any way possible?). I don't know because the article doesn't address that issue. If that exists, please enlighten me.
  10. illinilaw08

    2018 Democrats thread

    Per that NYT article that is not even a little true. "There are no residency requirements, however, for some offices, and election lawyers say Mr. Crowley could put his name in nomination for any number of positions."
  11. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    Seriously, dude. Balta and SB already hit on this, so this is probably piling on, but my post literally mentioned that the article cites to, and provides links to, studies on the subject. Did you think Nancy Pelosi conducted all those studies?
  12. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    I agree with this point as well. And it's not as easy to just change jobs to one that has better benefits as some legislators would like you to believe. For the record, I work for a small law firm that has absolutely spectacular health benefits - and I recognize just how lucky that I am to have that.
  13. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    Health care is expensive, and I tend to agree that policy in this country far too frequently ignores the impact on small businesses. With that being said, the obvious solution to the problems with the ACA is Medicare for All, or some similar policy. For profit health insurance either covers too few people, or prices people out of the market when the pool gets expanded.
  14. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    The fact that the US has had (and probably continues to have) terrible foreign policy - particularly in Latin and South America - does not give Russia carte blanche to interfere in US elections.
  15. illinilaw08

    **President Trump 2018 Thread**

    https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/deaths-health-care-bill/ Link to a discussion of the issue - and the article includes links to all the studies it cites. Basically, millions is hyperbole, but people without health insurance see the doctor less, leading to serious issues not getting caught, leading to people dying. One study found a 6.1% decrease in mortality since the ACA. Another study attributed 18,000 deaths in 2000 in "nonelderly adults" to lack of health insurance. It's a real issue - access to healthcare saves lives.