Political cartoon and meme thread for both sides of the spectrum.

[DandyDon]

So there actually were projections that showed it possibly hitting Alabama even if they were "outliers"?
I agree he needs to just drop this but holy fuck you people are desperate to jump on every little thing.

A someone who's gone thru a good number of hurricanes, and even a couple of hurricane eyes, I know they can take mysterious last-minute changes in course. Yea, there were projections that Dorian was going up through the Palm Beach area, then head northwest up under/through Orlando, then possibly as a very weakened storm into Alabama. That was a possibility, just a very improbable one. It wouldn't have been a hurricane or even a tropical storm, just fragments of a storm cell, had it gone that far.

We who lived in Orlando during 2004 will "fondly" remember Charley. It was supposed to tear the fuck out of Tampa. And every projection offered just that. So half of Tampa emptied out into Orlando, since that was the safe move. But before it went north, it took a strange right turn inland, then another strangle left turn straight north into and across Orlando and thru the state. And left Tampa basically unscathed. That wasn't supposed to happen! Then we had to worry about three more hurricanes after that.

There are really times that Trump just Needs To Shut The Fuck Up.

I agree. He really should let this one go. Even if it was technically true who gives a fuck? This is one of those times where punching back, usually something his fans like, just doesnt do him any good.

That is some subtle ballwashing there. Well done

Cheezy just cant help but get a lick in, even when he is pretending to disagree with whatever fuckup Trump has done.

[QillerDaemon]

And who says God doesn't have a sense of humor....

I just wish God didn't have Doug Stanhope's sense of humor.

[Cassandros]

Fuck that, pig-human hybrids is wrong.

In my humble opinion scientist need to start asking 'should we' and not just 'can we'.

They're working toward growing transplantable organs, which would save tens of thousands of lives every year. They aren't just doing it to see if they can.

No shit. And when they were trying to make goats milk produce spider silk- it was to make better armor, you know, to save lives.

Just because you can spin shit to look like a positive---> Doesn't make it ethical.

human-pig hybrids are wrong. Period.

Which reads:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

So... help me out here. How does, 'stay at my place on the other side of the island' violate this clause exactly?

Certainly you are not actually suggesting that paying for a hotel room is the same as accepting gifts from foreign nationals...

The Domestic Emoluments Clause

Which has nothing to do with Ireland...

I am also unsure of any State, or the US as a whole, giving him emoluments above the salary.

So, again, help me out here. Cause you are not making your stance very clear.

The foreign emoluments clause - the only one you were aware existed presumably - applies when he directs foreign business to his hotels, the domestic clause applies when he directs federal revenue to his hotels. He profits from his hotels.

/chuckle.

Carrying water for Spudoc, that's nice of you.

Unfortunately, unless there is evidence that the fees these people are paying are somehow higher than the room fee and the excess is funneling to Trump- you really don't have much of a leg to stand on here. But keep hoping...

Keep hoping.

Nope, that's something you just pulled from your ass to defend your mistake. There's no 'and also charging higher than the usual room rent to increase the profit margin' part.

Oh really, feel free to explain how I am wrong.

Or, just toss insults because you know I am right.

Again.

[spudoc]

Fuck that, pig-human hybrids is wrong.

In my humble opinion scientist need to start asking 'should we' and not just 'can we'.

They're working toward growing transplantable organs, which would save tens of thousands of lives every year. They aren't just doing it to see if they can.

No shit. And when they were trying to make goats milk produce spider silk- it was to make better armor, you know, to save lives.

Just because you can spin shit to look like a positive---> Doesn't make it ethical.

human-pig hybrids are wrong. Period.

The Domestic Emoluments Clause

Which has nothing to do with Ireland...

I am also unsure of any State, or the US as a whole, giving him emoluments above the salary.

So, again, help me out here. Cause you are not making your stance very clear.

The foreign emoluments clause - the only one you were aware existed presumably - applies when he directs foreign business to his hotels, the domestic clause applies when he directs federal revenue to his hotels. He profits from his hotels.

/chuckle.

Carrying water for Spudoc, that's nice of you.

Unfortunately, unless there is evidence that the fees these people are paying are somehow higher than the room fee and the excess is funneling to Trump- you really don't have much of a leg to stand on here. But keep hoping...

Keep hoping.

Nope, that's something you just pulled from your ass to defend your mistake. There's no 'and also charging higher than the usual room rent to increase the profit margin' part.

Oh really, feel free to explain how I am wrong.

Or, just toss insults because you know I am right.

Again.

The next time you are right will be the first time. Making your subordinates do government business with companies that you own is funneling federal (or state) dollars into your pocket. This really isn't that complicated but considering that you didn't know about the existence of the domestic emoluments clause until the other night it's probably taking you some time to wrap your head around it.

[Cassandros]

Fuck that, pig-human hybrids is wrong.

In my humble opinion scientist need to start asking 'should we' and not just 'can we'.

They're working toward growing transplantable organs, which would save tens of thousands of lives every year. They aren't just doing it to see if they can.

No shit. And when they were trying to make goats milk produce spider silk- it was to make better armor, you know, to save lives.

Just because you can spin shit to look like a positive---> Doesn't make it ethical.

human-pig hybrids are wrong. Period.

Which has nothing to do with Ireland...

I am also unsure of any State, or the US as a whole, giving him emoluments above the salary.

So, again, help me out here. Cause you are not making your stance very clear.

The foreign emoluments clause - the only one you were aware existed presumably - applies when he directs foreign business to his hotels, the domestic clause applies when he directs federal revenue to his hotels. He profits from his hotels.

/chuckle.

Carrying water for Spudoc, that's nice of you.

Unfortunately, unless there is evidence that the fees these people are paying are somehow higher than the room fee and the excess is funneling to Trump- you really don't have much of a leg to stand on here. But keep hoping...

Keep hoping.

Nope, that's something you just pulled from your ass to defend your mistake. There's no 'and also charging higher than the usual room rent to increase the profit margin' part.

Oh really, feel free to explain how I am wrong.

Or, just toss insults because you know I am right.

Again.

The next time you are right will be the first time. Making your subordinates do government business with companies that you own is funneling federal (or state) dollars into your pocket. This really isn't that complicated but considering that you didn't know about the existence of the domestic emoluments clause until the other night it's probably taking you some time to wrap your head around it.

Cute.

Not 100% certain Trump has forced anyone to stay at his hotels. Please cite something that isn't speculative.

Now, don't get me wrong- if he is forcing such activities that is absolutely wrong. But that is a symptom of a much larger disease... there are many businesses now that the law forces you and me to partake in. That is also wrong. It is also much more pervasive, but naturally you are hyper focused on Trump.

[AnalHamster]

Fuck that, pig-human hybrids is wrong.

In my humble opinion scientist need to start asking 'should we' and not just 'can we'.

They're working toward growing transplantable organs, which would save tens of thousands of lives every year. They aren't just doing it to see if they can.

No shit. And when they were trying to make goats milk produce spider silk- it was to make better armor, you know, to save lives.

Just because you can spin shit to look like a positive---> Doesn't make it ethical.

human-pig hybrids are wrong. Period.

It is literally and explicitly the purpose of the research, to grow transplantable organs. Your ignorance does not change the facts.

The Domestic Emoluments Clause

Which has nothing to do with Ireland...

I am also unsure of any State, or the US as a whole, giving him emoluments above the salary.

So, again, help me out here. Cause you are not making your stance very clear.

The foreign emoluments clause - the only one you were aware existed presumably - applies when he directs foreign business to his hotels, the domestic clause applies when he directs federal revenue to his hotels. He profits from his hotels.

/chuckle.

Carrying water for Spudoc, that's nice of you.

Unfortunately, unless there is evidence that the fees these people are paying are somehow higher than the room fee and the excess is funneling to Trump- you really don't have much of a leg to stand on here. But keep hoping...

Keep hoping.

Nope, that's something you just pulled from your ass to defend your mistake. There's no 'and also charging higher than the usual room rent to increase the profit margin' part.

Oh really, feel free to explain how I am wrong.

Or, just toss insults because you know I am right.

Again.

I have just explained how you are wrong, you're inventing a caveat that is not in the law to try and mask your initial error of not knowing there was a domestic emoluments clause. Didn't work.

[CaptQuint]

Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome Priest? Won't you stay on the other side of the island nation far away from your business to make people aware that I own a hotel there?

[CaptQuint]

[Evil.Fkn.Mean,Nasty]

Thats it. I'm flip-flopping.
I am now a Trump supporter.
I want 4 more years of this incredible clown act.

[PimpDaddy]

Thats it. I'm flip-flopping.
I am now a Trump supporter.
I want 4 more years of this incredible clown act.

It's happening. CaptQuint and Stapes are next!

[Charliesheen]

So the president’s a buffoon. You libs have quite the set of priorities.

He’s a jackass many times over. But his agenda churns forward.

[AnalHamster]

So the president’s a buffoon. You libs have quite the set of priorities.

He’s a jackass many times over. But his agenda churns forward.

Building an imaginary wall and fucking the economy with a trade war he's losing? Blowing up the deficit to a trillion dollars with a tax cut for corporations to buy back their own shares?

[Stapes]

[Wut]

So the president’s a buffoon. You libs have quite the set of priorities.

He’s a jackass many times over. But his agenda churns forward.

Building an imaginary wall and fucking the economy with a trade war he's losing? Blowing up the deficit to a trillion dollars with a tax cut for corporations to buy back their own shares?

Republicans don't care about deficits during s Republican presidency, they can't admit that he's fucking up the trade war with China, and they got their little tax cut so thats ok.

Sure he's a buffoon but that tax cut trumps everything else.

[CaptQuint]

[Cassandros]

Fuck that, pig-human hybrids is wrong.

In my humble opinion scientist need to start asking 'should we' and not just 'can we'.

They're working toward growing transplantable organs, which would save tens of thousands of lives every year. They aren't just doing it to see if they can.

No shit. And when they were trying to make goats milk produce spider silk- it was to make better armor, you know, to save lives.

Just because you can spin shit to look like a positive---> Doesn't make it ethical.

human-pig hybrids are wrong. Period.

It is literally and explicitly the purpose of the research, to grow transplantable organs. Your ignorance does not change the facts.

No shit. What's your point?

Using human stem-cells to create animal hybrids is not, as it currently form, ethical.

iPSC can potentially affect an animals brain, making more aware. More human. Until that is addressed and resolved- this research really shouldn't continue. But instead we have places taking the next step and mixing humans with something even closer related- monkeys.

Unethical.

Which has nothing to do with Ireland...

I am also unsure of any State, or the US as a whole, giving him emoluments above the salary.

So, again, help me out here. Cause you are not making your stance very clear.

The foreign emoluments clause - the only one you were aware existed presumably - applies when he directs foreign business to his hotels, the domestic clause applies when he directs federal revenue to his hotels. He profits from his hotels.

/chuckle.

Carrying water for Spudoc, that's nice of you.

Unfortunately, unless there is evidence that the fees these people are paying are somehow higher than the room fee and the excess is funneling to Trump- you really don't have much of a leg to stand on here. But keep hoping...

Keep hoping.

Nope, that's something you just pulled from your ass to defend your mistake. There's no 'and also charging higher than the usual room rent to increase the profit margin' part.

Oh really, feel free to explain how I am wrong.

Or, just toss insults because you know I am right.

Again.

I have just explained how you are wrong, you're inventing a caveat that is not in the law to try and mask your initial error of not knowing there was a domestic emoluments clause. Didn't work.

Oh, hahaha!! I'm "inventing caveats" now. That's rich.

Unless there is evidence he is forcing people to stay at his hotels, or evidence that the fees these people are paying are somehow higher than the room fee and the excess is funneling to Trump, or both- you really don't have much of a leg to stand on here.

And no amount of insults (veiled or vulgar) changes this reality. (But thanks for the laugh anyway).

[Wut]

I can't tell due to the overly long quote monsters, who here thinks that Pence staying in Trump's hotel and commuting to work is ethical and appropriate for the president and his little buddy, Pence?
A simple hand wave will do.

[CaptQuint]

Well I for one cannot see an employer letting me stay in New York because my ancestors once lived there when I should be staying in Baltimore where the job I'm supposed to be doing is located.

[CaptQuint]

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES


The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of "defraud" provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.
Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.

The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

The word "defraud" in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff'd, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).

Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.

The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest"), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).

In United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 (1991), the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that:

the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud, with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairs free from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false.
Madeoy, 912 F.2d at 1492.

Prosecutors considering charges under the defraud prong of Section 371, and the offense prong of Section 371 should be aware of United States v. Minarik, 875 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1989) holding limited, 985 F.2d 962 (1993), and related cases. See United States v. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993). In Minarik, the prosecution was found to have "used the defraud clause in a way that created great confusion about the conduct claimed to be illegal," and the conviction was reversed. 875 F.2d at 1196. After Minarik, defendants have frequently challenged indictments charging violations of both clauses, although many United States Courts of Appeals have found it permissible to invoke both clauses of Section 371. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d at 1092 (collecting cases); see also United States v. Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1994)(even though the defendant may have impaired a government agency's functions, as part of a scheme to defraud another party, the government offered no evidence that the defendant intended to defraud the United States and a conspiracy to violate an agency regulatory scheme could not lie on such facts).

In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:

[cited in JM 9-42.001]

They cheat the government out of money or property;
They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-res ... defraud-us

[Cassandros]

I can't tell due to the overly long quote monsters, who here thinks that Pence staying in Trump's hotel and commuting to work is ethical and appropriate for the president and his little buddy, Pence?
A simple hand wave will do.

Not appropriate, but also not unethical.

[Cassandros]

The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

So, this would include interfering with ICE then, correct?

[CaptQuint]

The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

So, this would include interfering with ICE then, correct?

No, States are not required to enforce Federal Law

[Cassandros]

The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

So, this would include interfering with ICE then, correct?

No, States are not required to enforce Federal Law

But they are required to follow federal law.

[CaptQuint]

The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

So, this would include interfering with ICE then, correct?

No, States are not required to enforce Federal Law

But they are required to follow federal law.

But not to enforce it

[Stapes]

I can't tell due to the overly long quote monsters, who here thinks that Pence staying in Trump's hotel and commuting to work is ethical and appropriate for the president and his little buddy, Pence?
A simple hand wave will do.

Not appropriate, but also not unethical.

No dude. Its unethical. You can bleat all you want but it's tragically unethical and a slap to the face of the American taxpayer footing the bill for these assholes. Please give me a break