Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Akkula

Impeachment

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Obstruction of Justice?   You mean "Attempted" Obstruction of Justice?  I'm not sure if that is a crime or not,

You ask a good question. Apparently Mueller said among other things that because McGahn and others close to the president refused to implement some of the directions they received from Trump, that worked in the guy's favor. If that is accurate, the obstruction laws should be changed or at least a new law making attempted obstruction should be implemented.

Again, I care about this country going forward and would anyone want to set a precedent that basically says it's OK for presidents to ATTEMPT to obstruct an investigation just so long as their subordinates refuse orders which would have allowed them to do so?

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

OK, thanks for clarifying.

 

Obstruction of Justice?   You mean "Attempted" Obstruction of Justice?  I'm not sure if that is a crime or not, but is that because Trump said to fire Mueller, and his cabinet wouldn't do it?   

Alan Dershowitz (the Democrat) already said that the executive branch has the authority to fire anyone, and it so there can't be obstruction for saying fire someone.   I'm not sure what other conduct the Democrats are talking about.

 

Campaign Finance Violations.  I hadn't heard of anything plausible on this....

 

Charity as a Slush Fund.   I think there might be a real crime on that.   But I think that might be before Trump was elected.   

 

 

I think the Campaign finance violations are the biggest ones.  That AMI Pecker got immunity for cooperation but we haven't heard anything from Mueller about that.  AMI bought off a couple of stories that were set to break right after the access Hollywood tapes.  How could the election have changed if AMI wasn't making illegal campaign "catch and kill" payments behalf of Trump with his full knowledge and support.  By the time the story broke he was president.  

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 minute ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

You ask a good question. Apparently Mueller said among other things that because McGahn and others close to the president refused to implement some of the directions they received from Trump, that worked in the guy's favor. If that is accurate, the obstruction laws should be changed or at least a new law making attempted obstruction should be implemented.

Again, I care about this country going forward and would anyone want to set a precedent that basically says it's OK for presidents to ATTEMPT to obstruct an investigation just so long as their subordinates refuse orders which would have allowed them to do so?

True, but I think the only "attempt" was that Trump told his subordinates to fire Mueller, and they wouldn't do it.

Even if they did, I don't think that is obstruction of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
2 minutes ago, Akkula said:

I think the Campaign finance violations are the biggest ones.  That AMI Pecker got immunity for cooperation but we haven't heard anything from Mueller about that.  AMI bought off a couple of stories that were set to break right after the access Hollywood tapes.  How could the election have changed if AMI wasn't making illegal campaign "catch and kill" payments behalf of Trump with his full knowledge and support.  By the time the story broke he was president.  

Forgot about that.  You have a valid point with the National Inquirer working with Trump.

Then again....you can find similar examples with the Democrats.   I recall that a CNN employee worked to advance the campaign of Hillary by feeding her debate questions.   I have no idea of money was exchanged for the information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if impeachment isn't legal, our legal system provides a widely accepted set of criteria that most of us feel are fair, and quite frankly a part of our foundational standards of holding each other accountable and responsible for out actions.  If an impeachment occurs and it conflicts with these legal standards, many of us will not accept the impeachment as a valid event.  This is what the Dems risk.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Akkula said:

The president can't be indicted so what other remedy is there for criminal conduct?  Would a grand jury say there is enough evidence to proceed to trial?  If so they should go to trial instead of the grand jury just holding pointless hearings.  

The closer we get to next year they are just going to say that this is just  a political stunt for the election.  The house better do it relatively quickly and bounce it over to the senate so American people can see what a truly worthless body that is too.

The first thing you have to do is identify the crime the president committed.  

Where did he touch you?

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Forgot about that.  You have a valid point with the National Inquirer working with Trump.

Then again....you can find similar examples with the Democrats.   I recall that a CNN employee worked to advance the campaign of Hillary by feeding her debate questions.   I have no idea of money was exchanged for the information.

Her so doing was despicable as I've said here a couple times before and CNN apparently agreed because her contract was not renewed. Guess who she now works for? https://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/ex-dnc-chair-donna-brazile-signs-with-fox-news-as-a-contributor/

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

You ask a good question. Apparently Mueller said among other things that because McGahn and others close to the president refused to implement some of the directions they received from Trump, that worked in the guy's favor. If that is accurate, the obstruction laws should be changed or at least a new law making attempted obstruction should be implemented.

Again, I care about this country going forward and would anyone want to set a precedent that basically says it's OK for presidents to ATTEMPT to obstruct an investigation just so long as their subordinates refuse orders which would have allowed them to do so?

It's pretty cut and dry.  There was no obstruction.  Perhaps it was discussed, but that isn't a crime.  It  would be like you and I planning a bank robbery but never following through.  Talking about it is not a crime. 

I'm guessing this stuff will blow over soon and the dims will once again try to make a big deal out of the tax returns Trump is not required to make public, but the dims want to see anyway.   

The solution to the dims Trump problem is finding someone who can beat him.  There is no one in the current crop of 16 or so who can do it.  

It will be interesting to see who the party of diversity nominates.  I'm guessing an old, white guy. 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

It's pretty cut and dry.  There was no obstruction.  Perhaps it was discussed, but that isn't a crime.  It  would be like you and I planning a bank robbery but never following through.  Talking about it is not a crime. 

I'm guessing this stuff will blow over soon and the dims will once again try to make a big deal out of the tax returns Trump is not required to make public, but the dims want to see anyway.   

The solution to the dims Trump problem is finding someone who can beat him.  There is no one in the current crop of 16 or so who can do it.  

It will be interesting to see who the party of diversity nominates.  I'm guessing an old, white guy. 

You are guessing this will blow over soon?  Why?  Dems control the House and keep it going as long as they want without actual impeaching Trump.  Plus just bringing in the likes of Barr and Mueller to answer questions keeps the lies in the headlines.  If anything, it will go on for months and months.  As far as nominees,  i think Biden will get it and pick one of the young guns as his VP candidate - maybe a Beto.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, alum93 said:

You are guessing this will blow over soon?  Why?  Dems control the House and keep it going as long as they want without actual impeaching Trump.  Plus just bringing in the likes of Barr and Mueller to answer questions keeps the lies in the headlines.  If anything, it will go on for months and months.  As far as nominees,  i think Biden will get it and pick one of the young guns as his VP candidate - maybe a Beto.  

Why?  Because sooner or later the dims will come to understand beating that drum is hurting them more than it's helping them.  Trump isn't going to get impeached.  That was a fools errand from the onset. 

I hope I'm wrong and they continue to double down on stupid.  I just don't think they are that dumb and they will move on to something that can get them some traction. 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aslowhiteguy said:

Why?  Because sooner or later the dims will come to understand beating that drum is hurting them more than it's helping them.  Trump isn't going to get impeached.  That was a fools errand from the onset. 

I hope I'm wrong and they continue to double down on stupid.  I just don't think they are that dumb and they will move on to something that can get them some traction. 

But you don't need to impeach to keep the investigation front and center.  And how can it hurt them as there has only been the midterms and the Democrats outperformed expectations with the House gains.  I am not saying it should continue indefinitely, i just don't see why Democrats would voluntarily let it go away at this point.  Barr and Mueller will testify soon and then we'll see where things go from there.  Sure it will be a circus, but that's politics.  It's not like Republicans played nice with Clinton or Obama.  They fought both presidents and their agendas tooth and nail,  delaying confirmation, never giving an inch in battles they felt they shouldn't.  Dems should be doing the same to Trump as long as he president, and certainly as they control the House.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alum93 said:

But you don't need to impeach to keep the investigation front and center.  And how can it hurt them as there has only been the midterms and the Democrats outperformed expectations with the House gains.  I am not saying it should continue indefinitely, i just don't see why Democrats would voluntarily let it go away at this point.  Barr and Mueller will testify soon and then we'll see where things go from there.  Sure it will be a circus, but that's politics.  It's not like Republicans played nice with Clinton or Obama.  They fought both presidents and their agendas tooth and nail,  delaying confirmation, never giving an inch in battles they felt they shouldn't.  Dems should be doing the same to Trump as long as he president, and certainly as they control the House.  

True.  But the investigation has pretty much run its course and the dems are now just grasping at straws.  It's making some of them look rather foolish.  

The investigation of the investigators could prove interesting though. But it too would be a waste of time and money.

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

True.  But the investigation has pretty much run its course and the dems are now just grasping at straws.  It's making some of them look rather foolish.  

The investigation of the investigators could prove interesting though. But it too would be a waste of time and money.

 

I'm sure it looks foolish to some people.  To others it would be a travesty to not keep pressing.  Our country is evenly split.  I'm fine with investigating the investigators too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, alum93 said:

I'm sure it looks foolish to some people.  To others it would be a travesty to not keep pressing.  Our country is evenly split.  I'm fine with investigating the investigators too.

I think the people who are pushing this are the same crowd that just couldn't accept that Hillary got beat.  They are a pathetic bunch. 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, #1Stunner said:

I don't agree with your conclusion,...

Apparently, reasonable minds disagree, and have for a long time, on whether impeachment is LEGAL or POLITICAL.

I think that it is a legal process, that is sometimes used as a political saber (political tool).   Like when the Republicans used the legal process of impeachment of Clinton, as a political tool to try and take him down.   When used as a political tool (i.e., implemented without any valid basis), it WILL backfire.

If a process can be, and is, used as a political tool, how can it be anything but a political process? 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe from WY said:

Are they going to try him for the "crime of being a king"? 

They should.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

They should.

Definitely. Especially if losing the 2020 election is among the party's main goals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...