|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Sticking your head in the sand is a sure fire way to avoid disaster. But doesn't that also place you in the ideal position for when reality comes up and bites you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Last week (circa 21 Aug) I heard an official with Planned Parenthood being interviewed on a Sirius XM Progress program about their having to stop receiving Title X funding because of a new Trump Admin rule violating the doctor-patient relationship. Not quite as bad as that recent Missouri rule (since rescinded) requiring extra unnecessary invasive exams which basically constituted state-mandated sexual assault, but created for the same purpose.
She brought up some points:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
So then impeachment is yet another topic which you do not understand. Of course, this admonition will fall on deaf ears yet again: Learn something about a subject before you pontificate on it!
Grounds for impeachment are not required to be violations of the law -- they can be, but they are not required to be. One can be impeached for violating one's oath of office, for abuse of power, for corruption, for severe ethics violations, for collusion with hostile foreign powers, for treasonous conduct, etc. Let's look at collusion more closely. Collusion is not illegal, because there is no law concerning collusion and there is not even any legal definition of collusion, as Mueller explained in his report. Conspiracy, basically collusion taken to an extreme, is illegal, but can be difficult to prove. But even though collusion in itself is not illegal, it is valid grounds for impeachment. The Mueller Report clearly shows that Trump and his campaign were up to their necks in collusion, but since Mueller was conducting a criminal investigation he could do nothing more about it than to report the facts; he left it up to Congress to address the question of collusion with their powers up to and possibly including impeachment. Treasonous conduct is also sticky. Treason can be difficult to convict someone of because it is narrowly defined (eg, during time of war). However, certain conduct can be determined to be treasonous even without rising to legal level of treason. Such as close collusion with a hostile country (eg, Trump's long private conversations with Putin where no other American was present). Such as handing classified material over to representatives of a hostile country (as Trump did with the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office with no other Americans present -- the Russians leaked that one). Such as compromising national security.
Percy writes:
First, none of those things is illegal. For the cowardly Democrats in Congresspaying off paramours, obstructing justice, accepting emoluments, hiding his tax returns, refusing to put his business in a blind trust, and stonewalling all congressional inquiries (just to mention the worst) wasn't enough. But apparently inviting campaign help from a foreign country has finally put Trump over the top for these paragons of gutlessness, and now Pelosi believes she finally has sufficient House support to begin impeachment inquiries. Completely false, as already pointed out by Taq. But to follow the rest of your misunderstandings:
In the case of paying off the paramours is it better to ... You are deflecting and diverting again. And in playing your tired game of "what about ... ?", you overlook the simple fact that such a sex scandal has sunk many political careers. But that's not the question here. What Trump did in engineering those pay-offs was in clear violation of campaign finance laws. Mike Cohen is already in prison for his part in it and in the cover-up (hey, if it's so innocent an act, why try to cover it up?). Trump has been identified as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in that case. The only thing that is preventing Trump's indictment in that case is that OLC memo preventing the indictment of a sitting president. Once Trump leaves office in or before 2021, then he can be indicted and prosecuted for his part in that crime. In the meantime, his part in that criminal conspiracy would qualify as one of the many grounds for impeachment that are hanging over his head.
Percy writes:
But he did no such thing. obstructing justice, Absolutely false! First, obstructing justice is most definitely a crime, one for which many people have been convicted and have gone to prison for. The Mueller Report cites and describes at least 10 instances in which Trump acted to obstruct justice. Remember, it's the attempt to obstruct that counts, not whether the attempt succeeded. That would be like arguing that you can't prosecute a bank robber because he was arrested in the middle of an attempted bank robbery. And again, it was only that OLC memo that prevented Mueller from indicting Trump for obstruction, but rather he had to leave it up to Congress to follow through. And once Trump leaves office, then he can be indicted and prosecuted for those acts of obstruction. But Trump's acts of obstructing justice (and Congress) are continuous. Trump commits obstruction every time that he blocks an investigation and that he orders his people to block an investigation. That includes, but not limited to, ignoring subpoenas, violating federal laws (eg, keeping the DNI from delivering whistleblower reports to Congress as required by federal law, keeping the IRS from providing tax information to Congress as required by federal law), refusing to enforce federal laws. Obstruction of justice and of Congress are illegal. Also note that one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was ignoring a Congressional subpoena, so there is precedence.
Percy writes:
For what? There's nothing wrong with accepting money as long as it's legal and there's no reason to think anything he accepted wasn't. accepting emoluments, Receiving emoluments, both foreign and domestic, is explicitly forbidden by The Constitution of the United States of America and grounds for impeachment. The President may not accept any money outside of his pay. Penultimate (ie, next to last) paragraph of Article II Section 1:
quote: Receiving emoluments is in violation of the Constitution and is an impeachable offense.
Percy writes:
You mean refusing to allow public scrutiny of his private life which is his right? hiding his tax returns, A president's finances are no longer private, but rather are a valid concern of Congress serving their Constitutional duty of oversight. Any conflict of interest that may exist must be known and dealt with. That does not mean that those tax returns would be released to the public, but it does mean that the appropriate congressional committees are absolutely required access to those returns. For that reason, federal law requires that the IRS SHALL release anybody's tax returns to Congress upon request. Now, Trump is infamous for leaving a large number of government positions unfilled, yet he was very careful to appoint his people to the top positions of the IRS, three layers of delegation down. He was very careful to have his people in position to block any request for his tax returns by directly violating federal law. This ordering someone to violate the law is yet another count of obstruction of justice against Trump -- like I said, Trump's crimes just keep piling up day after day. Now, before you try to deflect and divert again with false claims that "no other President has ever had to endure this before!", that's just yet another bullshirt liie. Every president's tax returns have been subject to examination and review. Sitting presidents are routinely under tax audit. The only difference is that this president refuses to be audited and there is no limit to the extremes that he will go to to keep his finances secret. This is a blatantly obvious cover-up, so just what is he so desperate to cover up? My own personal suspicion is that they will show how much money he was getting from Russian sources. Records from Deutsche Bank would also be very illuminating, given their past record of laundering Russian oligarch money.
Percy writes:
Apparently also his right and perfectly legal? refusing to put his business in a blind trust, This is an ethics violation. Putting your business in a blind trust is a measure to eliminate conflicts of interest. There is no law requiring it (not yet!) but there is a moral and ethical requirement for it. Since Trump has no sense of morality nor ethics, he ignored it. Now what would happen if Trump had to take measures against a country where he has financial interest? That would be a conflict of interest. Which would come first, country or personal financial interests? Of course, for Trump his personal finances come first above everything, except possibly his ego. He had financial interests in Russia and look how he has constantly pandered to Russia. When you look at the list of countries in his infamous Muslim ban, conspicuous in their absence on the list were the Muslim countries where he had financial interests.
That is precisely why a president must put his business in a blind trust, in order to avoid those conflicts of interest. And Trump's acting on his conflicts of interest is clearly grounds for impeachment. It should also be pointed out that keeping his businesses provides a conduit for receiving emoluments (effectively bribes). Also a conduit for Trump to funnel government money into his own pocket every time he goes golfing at one of his own resorts, which is almost every weekend.
Percy writes:
Which are all nothing more than harassment, not in any sense legitimate inquiries and stonewalling all congressional inquiries More bullshirt liies! Oversight of the Executive is one of Congress' constitutional duties. Those inquiries are a necessary part of their oversight duty without which they cannot possibly perform that duty. And every time he blocks a congressional inquiries and orders an underling to ignore or block an inquiry, he commits yet another act of obstruction, which is illegal. Thoroughly impeachable.
Percy writes:
We're still waiting to find out if there's anything to this but I guess they think there must be? One thing I keep hearing is that the "whistleblower" got his information secondhand, which means he's not legally a whistleblower. inviting campaign help from a foreign country has finally put Trump over the top It was help from Russia that got Trump into office to begin with. The other day a commentator quoted the old black women in her church: "The devil doesn't have any new tricks." Trump knows what got him into office so he's seeking that same kind of help again. You're hearing spin. We need for that whistleblower to testify before congressional committees. But even without that whistleblower report, the transcript that the WH released shows Trump shaking down the Ukrainian president.
Well, wait and see what comes of this ongoing Democrat vendetta based on nothing but hatred of Trump. No, what we have is a long litany of offenses by Trump who is endangering our country. But if Trump is so innocent and all that, why doesn't he just produce the requested documentation that would clear him, that would exonerate him completely? If he has nothing to hide, why is he so adamant about hiding everything at very great financial expense (armies of lawyers don't come cheap)? I remember that Trump himself said that taking the Fifth is an admission of guilt, because if you were actually innocent that you wouldn't need to take the Fifth. All of Trump's actions are effectively taking the Fifth. By his own standards, he must be guilty as sin.
ABE:I forgot to mention another federal law that Trump violated when he broadcast a false weather warning and then falsified an official weather map, so then two counts of violating that federal law. This is also known as "SharpieGate". Edited by dwise1, : ABE: SharpieGate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Today I saw an opinion piece that gives a short list of Trump's many transgressions, most of them impeachable.
"Donald Trump vs. the United States of America", New York Times, David Leonhardt, 2019 Sep 22, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/opinion/trump-ukraine-whistle-blower.html?fbclid=IwAR0ljBh2q5swuPvXUOo8moTrgODWGgwJZwPzoyO8MIBCu0fqjwaw1R-msts:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
The very first item on your list is false. I'm reading no more. No, it's not. But your reaction is both typical and highly predictable. I didn't post it specifically for you, but rather to share it with other normals. For that matter, I feel some idle curiosity about how many of those items you have even heard of. Everybody else has seen each of them play out in real time, but I very much doubt that you have since you restrict yourself to Fake News Network (and probably Fakes and Friends) and related radio traffic. They would never want to let you see what's actually been happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
So what? Stop lecturing me. Our minister would tell us the story of a congregation member complaining to his minister that he keeps telling them the same sermons over and over again. His minister replied that he had to keep repeating them because the congregation still hasn't learned from them. We have to keep lecturing you because you never learn anything. If you were capable of learning, then we wouldn't need to try to teach you. But you keep proving to be incapable, so we have to keep trying. Then you declare definitely illegal things as not being illegal, thus demonstrating that you have no clue what you are babbling about. Such glaring errors must be corrected so that lurkers will not be deceived by your falsehoods and also so that you can learn -- which you have proven you are incapable of, so we have to keep correcting you over and over and over again.
I didn't say impeachment depends on the legal status of these things, just that they have no legal status. Then why change the subject like that? Percy was talking about impeachable offenses, not illegal offenses -- though several of them are illegal or else included illegal activities (eg, the mistress payoffs). So you completely ignore what Percy was actually talking about and tried to deflect and divert us away. What deception were you trying to practice and why?
So many keep predicting that he's going to jail after his term of office and that certainly implies legal problems. I'm saying there aren't any. Which Trumps has aplenty. Just to get a very short list started: violations of several federal and state laws, countless counts of obstruction of justice, countless counts of obstruction of Congress, ignoring subpoenas (which I would assume is illegal, since it implies punishment if you do not comply), tax fraud, insurance fraud, possible money laundering. If that was what you were wanting to talk about, then why didn't you just say so up front? I think you're just trying to cover up here.
And I only read the first sentence or two of your lecture, have no interest in reading more. Of course, since you are terrified of learning anything. Perfect example of the detrimental effects of creationist thought processes when applied to life. Remember that when you bury your head in the sand, you assume the perfect position for when Reality comes up to bite you. Edited by dwise1, : "countless counts"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Taq quoted the Mueller Report with passages that answer your questions. I recommend that you read those quoted passages.
If he has enough evidence to prosecute then he brings charges. If there is not enough evidence to get a guilty verdict then he refuses to bring charges. But Mueller could do neither, though not for want of evidence. To your first point, Mueller could not indict the President because of the OLC memo setting the policy that a sitting President could not be indicted. To your second point, Mueller did not indict the President not for lack of evidence, but rather because of the OLC memo setting the policy that a sitting President could not be indicted. In other words, because of that OLC memo, indicting the President was above Mueller's pay-grade. As for exonerating the President, Mueller could not do that, but not for the reason you give (ie, that a prosecutor is not the one to find anyone guilty of any crime because that is not his job so he does not have the authority). Mueller could have exonerated Trump on the basis of saying that the evidence shows that Trump did nothing wrong. However, he could not do that and he explicitly stated that he could not do that (and Barr directly quoted Mueller to that effect). In the meantime, Barr's DOJ continues to block the full Mueller Report from Congress whose committees have urgent need to see that full report.
Is there a law or rule that an independent prosecutor can not recommend a president be prosecuted for obstructing justice if he has the evidence to get a conviction? Read the passage that Taq quoted from the Mueller Report. Programmers have an acronym that they hurl at lazy programmers: RTFM (Read The --- Manual!), since expanded to the Internet with STFW (Search The --- Web!). Taq provided that passage to you, which you are fully capable of reading for yourself. What more could I possibly contribute by providing the exact same passage to you again? If you couldn't be bothered to read it the first time, why should I expect you to read it the second time?
Mueller did not bring charges because he could not prove his case. Mueller explained why he could not bring charges against Trump. He did bring charges against many other people, many of the ones in this country having been convicted (the Russians have so far escaped conviction, but cannot enter this country). Again, Mueller's inability to indict Trump and his reluctance to bring charges against are given in the quotes provided by Taq. I recommend that you read them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Your latest senseless screed reminds of a remark made by Bruce Banner about Loki. So to borrow and paraphrase:
quote: Keep your head buried in the sand and keep your body optimally positioned to receive the inevitable bite of Reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
The absolute craziness of your post would take the better part of an hour to parse and respond to. But to what avail? You refuse to read any response. You refuse to learn anything. You refuse to face reality. The paraphrase of Bruce Banner is extremely apt. Clearly your brain is a bag of cats (and that is putting it extremely nicely) and the stench of crazzy about you is overwhelming.
In addition, you continue to repeat complete falsehoods despite your having been educated on the fact that they are false. That tells us that you are deliberately spreading falsehoods, which means that you are deliberately lyyng -- gee, in Christian doctrine, isn't that a sin? Oh! Your defense is that you deliberately chose to not read the multitude of messages that attempted to alleviate you of your abject ignurunce? Well that is your own fecking fault and only serves to condemn you all the more. Really, Faith. Why do you hate America so much? Edited by dwise1, : added italics where appropriate: as in "extremely nicely"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
I'm watching the 3-hour delay of MSNBC for the West Coast. Their breaking news is that the whistleblower report has been declassified and is scheduled to be released with "minimal redactions".
ABE:Link to NBC report: Whistleblower complaint against Trump declassified, could be released Thursday Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
You persistently ignore reality and spew out bullshirt liies. That is indeed crazzy and is indefensibly so.
If you were to conduct yourself in a sane manner, then you would not have the stench of crazzy on you. But despite all the chances we give you to conduct yourself in a sane manner, you persistently cannot do so. It is what it is. Conduct yourself in a sane manner and you will be treated accordingly. Persist in following the path of crazzy and the stench of crazzy will persist on you. It is what it is. No amount of Sharpie markups will change Reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Why should I read what Taq says when I can read or listen to what Mueller says? It wasn't what Taq says, but rather what the Mueller Report says. Taq quoted from the Mueller Report. That which Taq quoted answers your concerns. That is clearly what I told you with my "Taq quoted the Mueller Report with passages that answer your questions. I recommend that you read those quoted passages.".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
And yet while we were keeping the Russians under surveillance, Trump's campaign people kept showing up and making calls and meeting with the Russians, etc.
You need to lay off the Kool-Aid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
But a ton of collusion was. Collusion is not defined as a crime, but it is still impeachable. Especially the pattern of rampant collusion that was found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
That is a bullshirt liie and you know it! By repeating a liie that you know to be a liie, you are deliberately lyeing to us!
The Trump campaigns many contacts with the Russians are instances of collusion. To keep this short, here's that portion of the table of contents of the Mueller Report, which BTW we have shown to you before:
quote: That is over 100 pages of the Mueller Report dealing with the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russians.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024