|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
quote: 2018 Midterms: New Scientists Elected to US House, Senate Now that is something I can smile about. And perhaps another idea for Democrats to consider. Being progressive isn't just about ethnic, racial or gender diversity. It's about electing non-lawyers to office. You know, the type of people whose job it is to actually analyze the data and come up with a solution? As opposed to just talking about it endlessly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
No collusion yet everybody lied when it came to talking to the Russians. The obstruction question is still on the table even though the DOJ says he is exonerated. Congress is going to not let this go until every possible shred is looked at. Im glad Trump was cleared from collusion. I am not so sure he was not being obstructionist. So is this the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end.? The issue is far from over. Congress will subpoena the full Mueller report and will scrutinize it with a fine tooth comb. Which is what everyone expects at this stage. People will be called in to testify and there will likely be numerous Congressional hearings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
It was just a 'slip of the tongue' according to Sarah:
quote: Sarah Sanders doubles down on her ‘slip of the tongue’ excuse as April Ryan calls for her firing - MarketWatch In an ironic twist, ' Slip of the Tongue' is also one of Stormy Daniels' adult movies.Ok, I made that part up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
This is pretty straightforward. It says that Congress has responsibility for protecting the country from the corrupt use of presidential power, an indirect reference to impeachment. Impeachment now makes no sense because conviction in the Senate isn't even a remote possibility. High-profilers advocating impeachment are Elizabeth Warren and AOC. It isn't clear to me why they believe impeachment without conviction would be a better path to the truth than the investigations already initiated in the House. There are two facets to this: one is criminal and the other is political. And unfortunately, with the way the system works, both have to be weighed. On the one hand, if ample evidence exists that there was some level of impropriety, bordering on criminal behavior, by the President or the White House, that appears to warrant some level of action by the House. Either further investigations into the actions or impeachment proceedings. As you alluded to, Mueller essentially left that part open for Congress to determine. Now comes the political component. Would continued investigations or an impeachment proceeding benefit the Democrats in upcoming elections in 2020? That is hard to quantify. But if I play Devil's Advocate for a moment: the primary focus in the Mueller investigation was the prospect of collusion with a foreign power. I.e. Russia. That seems to have been thoroughly debunked. If the Democrats now utilize Congress to continue investigations or push for an impeachment, they may end up playing into Trump's hands and reinforcing the narrative that its all a 'witch hunt'. If I look at the Clinton impeachment in the 90s, that massively backfired for the Republicans. So there is a danger that a similar situation could manifest here and excessive fixation on the Mueller report could turn into a rallying cry for Trump and his base.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
I don't myself see "thoroughly debunked" and "did not establish" as close in meaning, especially when the latter appears after a statement about the "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign." Poor choice of words on my part. However, 'did not establish' is essentially stating that the evidence acquired did not seem to indicate willing collusion between Trump and Russia. Ultimately, the Mueller investigation is a fact finding mission. So he is presenting the facts as they were discovered. But based on the collusion portion, what Mueller is essentially stating is that the burden of proof is not met. Now the obstruction of justice portion is a whole other matter. In that case, Mueller indicated there were SEVERAL instances of attempted obstruction of justice by Trump. And he also iterated that the only reason actual obstruction did not occur is that the checks and balances built into the system prevented Trump from acting on it. However, attempted obstruction of justice is still something within the legal framework that is actionable. Incidentally, an attorney reviewed the Mueller report and put together a heat map of the instances as outlined.
Reference: Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map - Lawfare
Impeachment seems a futile exercise given Republican control of the Senate and the requirement of a 2/3 majority for conviction, but about incidents like the Trump Tower meeting and the sharing of polling data the Mueller report gives legalistic arguments for not delivering indictments having to do with the difficulty of establishing intent and the value of certain information. And then there are all the obstruction incidents. The Democrats might get a modestly improved benefit from impeachment if at the outset they clearly outline goals stating that they understand conviction isn't a realistic possibility but that they want to heed their constitutional responsibilities and also establish what really happened to the extent possible. But it would still be, as has been said, a political rather than judicial exercise. I am still waffling on this. But based on the numbers, I don't see impeachment as leading to anything other than just political wrangling at this stage. The Dems could potentially just start hearings and maybe even subpoena other individuals like Don Jr. or Jared Kushner. See if anything sticks there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Diomedes writes:
That's what Mueller thinks, but Schiff thinks the burden of proof *is* met. Who's right? Schiff's position makes far more sense to me than Mueller's, so I'll be closely following the committee's investigation. But based on the collusion portion, what Mueller is essentially stating is that the burden of proof is not met. Schiff is a Democratic Congressman. I am not picking sides and have no love for Trump, but I hardly think Schiff is approaching this in an unbiased fashion. If the Dems start undermining Mueller's interpretations of the events or understanding of the law, then the entire situation is going to devolve into a 'he said, she said' between attorneys across party lines. Don't think that will help things and will just reinforce the Trump 'witch hunt' narrative.
By "hearings" I think you mean impeachment hearings? If so, I don't think impeachment hearings are necessary. I think the investigations the House committees already have planned are sufficient. I assume they'll subpoena people like Trump Jr. and Kushner and so on. The outcomes of the investigation will help inform any decisions on impeachment. Sorry, didn't mean impeachment hearings. The existing investigations that are planned are the right way to go at this stage. Further hearings may become possible pending the outcome of the existing investigations. My concern is still the political fallout. Which is why I am wearing two hats here. One is looking at the evidence resulting from the Mueller investigation and determining the legal ramifications. And the other is trying to gauge the political ramifications and fallout from investigative or potential impeachment proceedings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
I guess Trump has never heard of airplanes... or ladders.... or shovels... or explosives. Fly over it, climb over it, blow a hole through it, or tunnel underneath it. You can go one further: a large portion of the border between Mexico and Texas is the Rio Grande river. Was he planning on building a wall in the center of it? Or maybe his plan is to use Gators:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
It's actually worse then that. While the official border goes down the center of the Rio Grande, Trump's plan is to build the wall on the US side of the river, effectively ceding several square miles of US territory to Mexico If that's the case, then I fully endorse using gators instead. Maybe we can go all Dr. Evil and fit them with lasers!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024