|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Pressie writes: Is it a crime under American law for a any AG to tell blatant lies to everyone in the world, in reports, on television, etc. in order to cover the crimes of a President? I think Barr could be accused of obstruction of justice if he carries out a misinformation campaign meant to hide hide crimes. He could also be impeached for lying to the public. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
dwise1 writes: Yet interestingly, what I heard yesterday is that Trump ordered Barr to have a press conference to tell the public that Trump did not break any law with his Ukrainian phone call and Barr wouldn't do it. It would appear that Barr isn't willing to go down with the ship. Some are also wondering what he knows about the SDNY investigation into Guiliani, and if that is informing his decision to distance himself from the Trump administration. When the poop starts moving towards the fan it is best to leave the room.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
AZPaul3 writes: Libel and slander are tort claims not really crimes per se. I supposed they might be considered crimes against an individual's ego but I didn't consider them crimes against society in the way I took Pressie's question. There is no federal criminal defamation law, but some states do have criminal defamation laws. I guess we can both be right since there are states where there you won't face criminal charges for defamation.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Percy writes: More directly, we must have the testimony of Bolton, Giuliani and Mulvaney (and I would add Perry and McGahn and others), no matter how long it takes for subpoena challenges to wend their way all the way up to the Supreme Court. I don't think that is needed for impeachment. There is already more than enough evidence to justify a trial. What I think people have lost sight of is that impeachment is an indictment. It isn't a conviction. The bar is much, much lower for indictment. It would also be worth reminding Republicans that no lawyers from the defense are allowed into grand jury hearings in the lead up to an indictment. That is how due process works in the US. Nowhere in due process does it give the suspect a right to be a part of the investigation or grand jury hearings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Percy writes: I agree that the evidence they already have is sufficient for voting articles of impeachment, but the more narrow and shallow the less impact. If I didn't already say it in this thread, I would like to see every Senator go on the record for every impeachable act, not just the Ukraine. House Democrats risk going down in history as giving greater weight to their political fortunes than to their constitutional responsibilities. I don't think they risk that at all. This is a very clear abuse of power on the part of Trump, and it is important to point out that it is an ongoing abuse of power. If this was something like a one-off crime (e.g. theft at a political party's offices) it might be different, but this is an ongoing campaign to solicit political favors from foreign countries, as shown by Trump's solicitation of help from China. There is an threat to the upcoming election, so it makes little sense to allow obstruction to push the investigations past the 2020 election. When Trump is impeached and it moves to a trial in the Senate I think there will be much more power behind subpoenas. I don't see any legal path for anyone to refuse testifying, so I think it is a good idea to push into the trial phase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
RAZD writes: But if the subpoenas are issued now they have more time to work through the courts. I think it is rather cynical to even ask the courts to rule on whether someone has to obey a subpoena. I don't see how someone can question such a basic and fundamental constitutional power. If a citizen stated, "You know, I don't think I have to obey a subpoena," what would happen to them? I would think most courts would laugh at them, and hold them in contempt. People have been jailed for months for simply refusing to testify. How is this not settled law?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Percy writes: Wouldn't wending through the legal challenges only push the trial out to next spring or summer? Possibly longer since they will start in the lowest court possible and push through each level of appeals until reaching SCOTUS. Even then, Republicans will claim that it would be unfair to remove a nominated candidate from an election, so I think it is best to get this all done before primaries are in full swing. If you are going to convince Republicans to vote for removal then you need to give them time to nominate a new candidate. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Percy writes: I can't see any scenario where enough Republicans would vote to convict on any article. The best that can be hoped for is that Republicans are forced to vote on articles that are broad and deep rather than narrow and flimsy, and that are supported by a majority of Americans. The current articles are already supported by a majority of Americans, so that isn't the problem. It is a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless. If more than half the country thinks you should be removed from office, that doesn't bode well for the next election. The only scenario where Republicans would vote Trump out would be if they saw no way of him winning. This scenario would be helped by a trial that finishes before March so they could run primaries and groom a new candidate. Just from a political standpoint, Republicans would stick with a terrible candidate Trump over a new candidate that starts out way behind the Democratic candidate. Imagine having to find a new candidate a month before the Republican convention. However, as Faith has shown us, Trump supporters aren't swayed by facts, law, or morality. Trump losing his base is probably not going to happen, so all we are left with is 20 Republicans in the Senate finding a moral backbone, and the chances of that are slim to none.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Percy writes: I extracted the problems the IG identified with the Carter Page FISA application and renewals to make it easier to find them. I think people should make of them what they will. FISA warrants are all but rubber stamps, anyway. If they looked at 20 random FISA warrants they would probably find the same or worse in half of them. I'm not saying this a good thing, but the courts have long given investigators a wide berth when it comes to these warrants.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Hyroglyphx writes: We have a deeply flawed system. "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."--Winston Churchill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Hyroglyphx writes: I attribute this mostly to the lackluster allegations and sloppy job legitimizing a case against him. I thought the Articles of Impeachment were very shoddy and very weak. I have never understood this view. Using public money to leverage attacks against your political opponent is a heinous act. How is that not impeachable? Using public money for personal gain is the very definition of corruption. There is also zero doubt that Trump did it. The cover up was done in broad day light through the denial of subpoenas. If Trump was a Democrat and there were 67 Republicans in the Senate, Trump would have been thrown out of office. The only reason he is still in office is because Republicans put their party before country.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
AZPaul3 writes: IMHO both dissents are bullshit. Still, for me, the court’s opinion that When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit. is a wrinkle that will have far reaching ramifications. The wrinkle that interests me is that the Civil Rights Act is not a constitutional amendment. Congress can change the CRA if they want. If conservatives don't like this ruling then they can propose a bill that explicitly takes away protections for LGBT employees. They can go to their constituents and campaign on the issue. However, Republicans probably know what we already know. They would lose seats and influence if they followed this path. A recent Gallup poll question: "As you may know, there has been considerable discussion in the news regarding the rights of gay men and lesbian women. In general, do you think gays or lesbians should or should not have equal rights as non-gays or non-lesbians in terms of job opportunities?"Yes, they should -- 93% No, they should not -- 5% Gay and Lesbian Rights | Gallup Historical Trends Try running against those numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Percy writes: Stephen Colbert held up a copy of Bolton's book on his Monday night show. Once the review copies go out it is pretty meaningless to try and stop the book from reaching the general public. It would appear that news outlets already have the book in full, and are honoring the publisher's embargo date on good faith. If the DOJ tries to stop publication then news outlets will just report on whats in the book. It seems rather silly on the part of the DOJ. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
vimesey writes: It’s so encouraging to see certifiable loons endorsing Trump Exactly. You will know them by their fruit. Trump supporters have joined the ranks of Amway salesman and Flat Earthers. I can respect a conservative, even if we disagree on policy. However, Trump supporters have lost all touch with reality which makes it rather difficult to discuss things like facts. My response to Trump supporters: have more rope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
servant writes: my god died for me God is dead. Guess we don't have to worry about worshiping him anymore.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024