|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Sarah Sanders is covering up her lies with slander and more lies. Interviewed earlier today by George Stephanopoulos, Sanders again said that it was a mere "slip of tongue" when she said that the FBI rank and file had lost faith in then FBI director James Comey, the same characterization she provided in her Mueller testimony. Stephanopoulos challenged Sanders claim, saying that it couldn't be a slip of the tongue since she had repeated the same claim multiple times in the days following, continuing:
quote: Sanders excused her false statements by telling more lies:
quote: There were undoubtedly some immoderate voices among the Democrats, but by and large the Democrats have been fairly moderate in their characterization and analysis of the publicly available evidence as it became known, so it is worth enumerating Sarah Sanders' additional lies:
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Percy, I feel it’s very clear what scandal she’s talking about: the terrible outrage of someone saying something less than fawning about her boss.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Concerning obstruction of justice, here are a couple important quotes from The Mueller Report. This one's about prosecutions (volume 2, page 1, PDF page 213):
quote: Restating this more concisely, a thorough investigation was conducted now because everyone but the president can be prosecuted now while the president may be prosecuted after he leaves office. This one's about impeachment (volume 2, page 8, PDF page 220):
quote: 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. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Diomedes writes: 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. Thoroughly debunked? Quoting the Mueller report, Volume I, page 1, PDF page 9:
quote: 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."
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 it's all a 'witch hunt'. 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.
If I look at the Clinton impeachment in the [late] 90s, that massively backfired for the Republicans. This is often said but is not something I understand. Two years later the Republicans were in the White House, and now they're in it again. They've controlled the House for 20 of the last 26 years, and the Senate for 16. I don't actually have a preference for which party controls Congress or is in the White House. My preferences are much more related to competence, professionalism, experience, and the ability to work across the aisle. Unfortunately both parties often behave reprehensibly, more so when in power. Anyone desiring a representational role in government at the state or federal level should be viewed suspiciously. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Diomedes writes: 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. When Russians offered dirt on Hillary Clinton Trump Jr.'s responded, "If it's what you say I love it." I don't see how that isn't a crime if followed through on, which he did by setting up and attending the Trump Tower Meeting. It's illegal to accept foreign campaign assistance, including anything of value (I quoted that particular law somewhere upthread, I can dig it out again if it's important). The Mueller report described difficulty in determining what was of value, but as Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said this weekend, opposition research is very valuable to campaigns. Trump Jr. tried to obtain something of great value to the Trump campaign (dirt on Hillary Clinton) from a foreign power, and that's illegal. Mueller defined criminality as conspiracy to coordinate with the Russian government in their election interference efforts. The Russian government offered dirt on Clinton, Trump Jr. set up the meeting, and they had the meeting. That is coordination. Mueller demurred to charge a crime because:
But based on the collusion portion, what Mueller is essentially stating is that the burden of proof is not met. 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.
The Dems could potentially just start hearings and maybe even subpoena other individuals like Don Jr. or Jared Kushner. See if anything sticks there. 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. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Diomedes writes: 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 I'm interpreting you correctly, this seems an argument for ignoring any politician. Schiff is a Democrat, Democrats are biased, therefore the opinions of Democrats should discounted. And by the same argument Republican opinions should be discounted. I don't think I can go along with that. I will listen to anyone bringing rational arguments based upon established facts.
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. Expectations of concurrence on events and the law might arguably not be practical. As I said previously, Schiff's position on the Trump Tower meeting makes sense to me, Mueller's doesn't. I can be persuaded I'm wrong, but I need to know what is wrong with Schiff's argument, and how my assessment of Mueller's argument is wrong.
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. Some Democrats are running from their own shadows. They have to leave the political ramifications aside and let them fall where they may. They should do their jobs and follow the evidence where it leads. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Diomedes writes: 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. Bill Clinton was impeached over lying about having sex in the White House, and possibly taking steps to cover it up. In a strict legal sense, Republicans had grounds for impeachment proceedings. However, the politics didn't work out for them. They lacked the votes in the Senate to kick Clinton out of office, and it did look like a witch hunt. Democrats should keep this piece of history in mind. The one difference is that Clinton was actually an effective and sane president.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Link to searchable/copyable Mueller report.
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Taq writes: The one difference is that Clinton was actually an effective and sane president. Unfortunately it seems the Cheeto in Chief and his progeny seem to be considered by Mueller to be too stupid to rise to the level of criminality. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
That's certainly a reasonable conclusion and honestly il Donald is hardly worth the effort to impeach. The world should simply continue to ignore the fool, refuse to commit the crimes he requests, let the courts continue to overturn his most stupid mistakes and let the whole rest of the world enjoy laughing at the US and il Donald.
At least he is a wonderful source for late night comedy. Once he's out of office, follow the money and leave the whole family on the dole.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
According to a New York Times article (In Push for 2020 Election Security, Top Official Was Warned: Don’t Tell Trump), former Department of Homeland Security head Kirstjen Nielsen was stymied in her efforts to protect the country from Russian interference in the 2020 election by Trump's disinterest.
White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney instructed Nielsen not to raise the issue to Trump, saying that Trump still considered attaching any importance to Russian interference questioned the legitimacy of his presidency. Nielsen was unable to hold high level meetings:
quote: Conspiracy through coordination with Russians in the 2016 election combined with obstruction of efforts to investigate that conspiracy are not the only impeachable offenses. Failing to protect the country from foreign threats also seems like a treasonable and impeachable offense. --Percy Edited by Percy, : It wasn't an opinion piece - it was a news article.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
Failing to protect the country from foreign threats also seems like a treasonable and impeachable offense. On the other hand, they understood the threat to US security posed by mothers with children, so there's that.Hell hath no fury like a white man scorned. If you take nothing else from the Senate’s confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, take that much. -- Kai Wright
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024