|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Trump didn't say Mexico would pay for it up front but will pay for it in the end. Of course he has to get the money from Congress first. Only after he took office did Trump back off his claims that Mexico would pay for the wall and begin allowing that it might be through reimbursement. But Mexico has been very clear that they are not paying for the wall, not directly, not through reimbursement, not by any means. If Trump manages to get the money for the wall from the American people then we will end up footing the bill, because Mexico is not paying for the wall. They have made that very clear.
One of the million differences between Clinton or the Clintons and Trump is that he didn't commit his "affairs" in the Oval Office, or even at any point when he was campaigning for the Presidency, and what he did before has nothing to do with any of that, hard as the Left is trying to make it seem it does. What Trump did, just on the affair coverups alone, is far worse than Bill Clinton. Clinton was legitimately president of the United States. What we're learning now is that Trump likely gained the presidency by fraudulent means. Trump paid to keep information about his affairs from the American people, committing fraud to steal an election. That is just the kind of thing the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: There were no campaign financing laws violated no matter what Cohen said. Not only were campaign financing laws violated, fraud was committed. Cohen, AMI (publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker (AMI chief executive, granted by the US attorney's office in New York) and Allen Weisselberg (Trump Organization CFO, granted immunity by Mueller) have all admitted that they conspired with Trump to keep Trump's affairs secret from the American public. The violation of campaign financing laws occurred because the payoffs were made to advance the interests of the campaign, and because the amounts exceeded legal limits. Fraud occurred because that's what it is when you pay bribes to keep information secret that was important to the American electorate in choosing a president. Those who could see Trump for what he was always expected that Trump would have great difficulty not committing impeachable offenses once in office. What we didn't expect was that he would find a way to commit impeachable offenses before even being elected. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Oh I don't claim any knowledge,... With good reason. What's amazing is that you realize you have no knowledge.
I'm just trying to get across something of the Right point of view as I've been getting it, but there are plenty who do know all this and I really hope their views are going to have an impact in the end. I hope so, too. Since being dead wrong usually does have an impact, there's a good chance this could come to pass. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
What Trump did, just on the affair coverups alone, is far worse than Bill Clinton. Clinton was legitimately president of the United States. What we're learning now is that Trump likely gained the presidency by fraudulent means. Trump paid to keep information about his affairs from the American people, committing fraud to steal an election. That is just the kind of thing the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors. This seems to be clutching at straws a little - covering up affairs is hardly 'obtaining the Presidency by fraudulent means'; unless we're taking the view that all lies told during a campaign amount to this. In which case pretty much every politician is guilty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
AZPaul3 writes: Oh, hey, got anybody in mind? On the positive side? With an actual chance to win? Who wouldn't deliberately insult and disgust everyone on the planet except Putin? Elizabeth Warren? No, Not Bernie again. Sherrod Brown comes to mind. I suspect that there are Dem governors that could fit the bill, and they won't have the stink of Congress on them. There are plenty of safe bets, and a superstar might emerge at some point. I don't think it is Beto's time just yet, but it might be in the future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Trump paid to keep information about his affairs from the American people, committing fraud to steal an election. That is just the kind of thing the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors." Agreed, but not sufficient. We need lots more evidence of more damaging willful violations of law. Keep in mind that in this case the goal should be not impeachment but conviction in the Senate. We need to throw his ass out. So we need enough such evidence of strong enough character as to be acceptable to this upcoming Senate. That’s a tall order. Impeachment, as it so happened the last two times we tried it, leads to further political turmoil without changing anything. I do not see impeachment as any effective remedy if it leaves this buffoon in office. Someone has to inform future generations of what happens when you don’t pay attention to the politics around you. Having this be the historical precedent of actually slamming the door on a president would serve as that caution. Ehh, anyway, there is going to be an election and, maybe, if we’re lucky, the whole thing can be taken off the national political stage and relegated to the criminal courts and the tabloids where it belongs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
caffeine writes: This seems to be clutching at straws a little - covering up affairs is hardly 'obtaining the Presidency by fraudulent means'; unless we're taking the view that all lies told during a campaign amount to this. In which case pretty much every politician is guilty. The payoffs were made in the last couple weeks before the election when information about the affairs would have had maximum effect. The payoffs violated campaign financing laws. Trump lied to the American people (the lies kept changing as he gradually admitted more and more, but he's still lying as he denies the affairs ever happened). Cohen lied to two Congressional committees. It was a conspiracy between at least four people (Trump, Cohen, Pecker, Weisselberg). AMI engaged in deceptive practices, buying stories not to print them but to bury them. If you disagree that all this rises to the level of possible impeachable offenses then I won't try to persuade you otherwise. But if you disagree because you think this is a fringe opinion then know that there are senior members of Congress saying the same thing. And recent news reports tell us that Trump is privately expressing concern about possible impeachment. And if you think it wouldn't have made a difference in the election then consider how it would have played if Daniels and McDougal had gone public about the same time Comey announced he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
AZPaul3 writes: We need lots more evidence of more damaging willful violations of law. Keep in mind that in this case the goal should be not impeachment but conviction in the Senate. We need to throw his ass out. So we need enough such evidence of strong enough character as to be acceptable to this upcoming Senate. That’s a tall order. It doesn't make sense for the Dems to impeach Trump, at least from a political standpoint. Running against Trump in 2020 is a gift with a giant bow on top.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Percy writes: Trump paid to keep information about his affairs from the American people, committing fraud to steal an election. That is just the kind of thing the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Agreed, but not sufficient. See my reply to Caffeine in Message 307.
We need lots more evidence of more damaging willful violations of law. Keep in mind that in this case the goal should be not impeachment but conviction in the Senate. We need to throw his ass out. So we need enough such evidence of strong enough character as to be acceptable to this upcoming Senate. That’s a tall order. It sure is. Democrats in the House will be looking at what they think will eventually end up in the articles of impeachment. Removing Trump from office isn't a necessary or even the most desirable outcome. Just putting Trump through the process and holding Senate Republican's feet to the fire may be just what the doctor ordered to return us to single-party government, only this time flipped the other way around.
Impeachment, as it so happened the last two times we tried it, leads to further political turmoil without changing anything. I do not see impeachment as any effective remedy if it leaves this buffoon in office. The charges against Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were contrived or had nothing to do with high crimes and misdemeanors. There has never really been an impeachment trial on truly impeachable offenses, since Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Someone has to inform future generations of what happens when you don’t pay attention to the politics around you. Having this be the historical precedent of actually slamming the door on a president would serve as that caution. Trump puts Nixon's offenses to shame. Nixon was guilty of a single coverup. Trump is guilty (if all the smoke truly indicates fire) of a raft of offenses.
Ehh, anyway, there is going to be an election and, maybe, if we’re lucky, the whole thing can be taken off the national political stage and relegated to the criminal courts and the tabloids where it belongs. If Trump's reelected and the interpretation stands that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, then the statute of limitations will run out and Trump will get off scot-free. An impeachment trial might be the only shot at holding Trump accountable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Trump didn't say Mexico would pay for it up front but will pay for it in the end. Of course he has to get the money from Congress first. Trump made no such qualifications. If Mexico is going to pay for it in the end, then lets wait for Mexico to come up with the money. That's what Trump promised. No he did not and nobody in their right mind thought that's what he meant when he said it. We knew he meant that in the end it would be economically disadvantageous to Mexico in various ways and that's how they would pay for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I don't want Trump to be kicked out or resign. Yes, he's caused incredible damage to America and the world. Yes, he is going to keep it up at the same level or worse. Yes, it'll take decades to recover what can be recovered; IMHO our world leadership isn't coming back.
But Pence would make him look like a piker. They're both evil but Pence is far, far more competent at doing evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
BS.
Quote someone saying that. Certainly the vast majority of people at his rallies thought he was going to make some seemingly impossible deal with Mexico to put up the money directly. They failed to account for the fact that he can't make deals or negotiate. His only tactic is bullying and he can't even conceive of a win-win. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If Trump's reelected and the interpretation stands that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, then the statute of limitations will run out and Trump will get off scot-free. An impeachment trial might be the only shot at holding Trump accountable. Holding Trump accountable for something they just now discovered after two years of searching and searching and searching to find something, anything, they can hold over him. They started crying "impeachment" before he was even in office, when they had nothing, zero, to impeach him for. Then they trumped up the "dossier," a fake document paid for by Hillary Clinton alleging some pretty salacious disgusting things that simply were not true (but somehow she got a pass on all that and more?), yet the whole Russia collusion thing goes on and on and on merely on the strength of the determination of the Left to get the man one way or another, insinuating this or that, trying to turn the public against him any way they can. There is NO evidence whatever of Russia collusion. They've come up with things they can prosecute people related to Trump for but it's all personal stuff, nothing directly about the campaign or Presidency, until now they think they've finally got something in his paying a couple of women not to talk about their "affairs" with him, on the advice of his lawyer yet. What I've been hearing is that legally it isn't going to go anywhere but wait and see, the Left is nothing if not clever at misusing the law to their own political purposes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Quote someone saying that. Certainly the vast majority of people at his rallies thought he was going to make some seemingly impossible deal with Mexico to put up the money directly. YOU quote something to prove THAT. That would be idiotic and NOBODY I know of thought such a thing. I certainly did not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: We knew he meant that in the end it would be economically disadvantageous to Mexico in various ways and that's how they would pay for it. That's a bare-faced lie. Wow. How fucked-up can a mind get. Rationalising away events that happened millions of years ago is one thing, doing the same about stuff that happened over and over again a few months ago that was televised is just plain lying.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024