Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

T5 Official Discussion: The Trump Presidency

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by DokTOR. View Post
    Has any US president actually been impeached at all
    Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but eventually were acquitted due to not having the supermajority in Congress. Richard Nixon was going to be impeached, but he resigned before Congress was able to do it.

    Comment


      Originally posted by -Person- View Post
      So seems like barr's initial summary downplayed the hell out the actual report
      Well, it was more obfuscating the rest by pointing out the one kernel of truth which was that there wasn't really much evidence for Trump colluding with Russia and that that was what the investigation was about.

      Comment


        Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
        Sooo, the Mueller report finally dropped on our laps.

        ...And it more or less seems to confirm everything we already knew.

        No collusion, no confident conclusion on obstruction, Dems want to continue to investigate the fuck out of Trump for anything they can, Trump wants a revenge investigation., etc.

        But it's always nice to have the transparency.
        Err.. what? Did you even look at the sections people pointed out and talked about? There is a ton of evidence on said obstruction. The problem is Mueller decided to up hold an old 70s ruling about the special council not being able to indict a sitting president. So he past the buck to Congress to sort this shit out.

        Furthermore there is a number of incidents in that report showing Trump had attempted to stop the investigation but his advisers ignored his orders or just flat out resigned. It is nice to see that they have a moral standing but could you imagine if he had some of his more crazed followers in those same positions? Also... if someone tries to commit murder they are still arrested. If you attempt to steal a car, you are still arrested. So I don't see how him trying to further obstruct justice is ok to many people just because he failed at it.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post

          Err.. what? Did you even look at the sections people pointed out and talked about? There is a ton of evidence on said obstruction. The problem is Mueller decided to up hold an old 70s ruling about the special council not being able to indict a sitting president. So he past the buck to Congress to sort this shit out.

          Furthermore there is a number of incidents in that report showing Trump had attempted to stop the investigation but his advisers ignored his orders or just flat out resigned. It is nice to see that they have a moral standing but could you imagine if he had some of his more crazed followers in those same positions? Also... if someone tries to commit murder they are still arrested. If you attempt to steal a car, you are still arrested. So I don't see how him trying to further obstruct justice is ok to many people just because he failed at it.
          The biggest issue with the obstruction charges was that they didn't uncover solid evidence of a conspiracy with Russia. Mueller basically said "yeah, he was obstructing the investigation but he didn't really have much reason to."

          Had the investigation branched out further, into Trump's personal finances, as a result of all the fraud uncovered he would have been charged with obstruction as well. Looking back on it, that is likely the reason Trump was so upset with the investigation. Probably had little to do with winning the presidency and more to do with his money.

          Comment


            AOC's Top 4 Reasons to Impeach Trump. 1) Foreign politicians have stayed at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. 2) "Tax fraud" (not prove

            Imagine that, politicians arguing that people should be thrown in jail despite the fact that there are no cases that can be made against them.


            Sorry AOC, but unlike Mexico the US of A is a civilized country.
            Last edited by Timeless Writer; April 20th, 2019, 04:23 PM.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Timeless Writer View Post

              Imagine that, politicians arguing that people should be thrown in jail despite the fact that there are no cases that can be made against them.


              Sorry AOC, but unlike Mexico the US of A is a civilized country.
              Tell me you aren't taking a fox news headline seriously lol.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Timeless Writer View Post
                AOC's Top 4 Reasons to Impeach Trump. 1) Foreign politicians have stayed at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. 2) "Tax fraud" (not prove

                Imagine that, politicians arguing that people should be thrown in jail despite the fact that there are no cases that can be made against them.


                Sorry AOC, but unlike Mexico the US of A is a civilized country.

                Comment


                • Cid
                  Cid commented
                  Editing a comment
                  OrganizationXV It's in Mueller's report.

                  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-document.html

                  Vol. 2, Page 78. Alternatively, just ctrl+f for "fucked" lol

                • OrganizationXV
                  OrganizationXV commented
                  Editing a comment
                  To be fair, the document goes on to mention that Trump said:

                  "“Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”

                  So it looks like he wasn't necessarily worried about being found guilty.

                • Cid
                  Cid commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Well, he wasn't wrong.

                Originally posted by Timeless Writer View Post
                AOC's Top 4 Reasons to Impeach Trump. 1) Foreign politicians have stayed at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. 2) "Tax fraud" (not prove

                Imagine that, politicians arguing that people should be thrown in jail despite the fact that there are no cases that can be made against them.


                Sorry AOC, but unlike Mexico the US of A is a civilized country.
                ....Serious question, did you watch the video, or are you just sharing a picture your dipshit friends posted on FB? Even in the Fox clip she listed off several reasons. Not to fucking mention, they conveniently clipped out the first reason she listed. nice bit of journalism there, the right truly is a peragon of honesty and righteousness, getting this riled up over a young popular politician.

                Maybe instead of interpreting her pauses in speech as flailing, you might want to consider she's taking the time to think over her responses carefully....But who am I kidding, you voted for an incompetent buffoon on the sole basis that he was able to babble an insipid stream of stupidity nonstop. How's that wall coming along, by the way?
                Last edited by Helly; April 20th, 2019, 08:00 PM.

                Comment


                • DokTOR.
                  DokTOR. commented
                  Editing a comment
                  "Peragon"

                Originally posted by Timeless Writer View Post
                AOC's Top 4 Reasons to Impeach Trump. 1) Foreign politicians have stayed at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. 2) "Tax fraud" (not prove

                Imagine that, politicians arguing that people should be thrown in jail despite the fact that there are no cases that can be made against them.


                Sorry AOC, but unlike Mexico the US of A is a civilized country.
                Imagine being this gullible to take Fox News headlines at face value. Secondly... really??? A Mexico reference? You are one really ignorant fucktard aren't you? She's fuckin' Puerto Rican!

                Bet your nazi white nationalist loving friends on Fox News would flip out if someone mixed up their race with something else. I'm sure Tucker Carlson would get mad if I called him Turkish or French. Oh wait, a quick google search later and infact... he is probably more mixed than the Mexicans and hispanics he makes fun of.


                Ethnicity: English, German, Scottish, Irish, 1/16th Swiss-Italian, about 1/16th Portuguese, distant Dutch, possibly Swedish
                https://ethnicelebs.com/tucker-carlson
                Oh yea, the irony of him supporting the very people that would shun him or have murdered his ancestors back in WW2 is not lost on me. lol

                Comment


                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Cid View Post

                    The biggest issue with the obstruction charges was that they didn't uncover solid evidence of a conspiracy with Russia. Mueller basically said "yeah, he was obstructing the investigation but he didn't really have much reason to."
                    Incorrect--let me just clarify a point-of-law here. (Mueller actually did a pretty good job addressing this in the report)

                    Criminal Obstruction of Justice Charges do NOT require you to be a party to the conduct forming the subject matter of the investigation you are trying to obstruct.

                    It requires that you:

                    1) Take predicate acts to obstruct an ongoing investigation

                    2) Have an improper motive for so acting


                    A "proper" motive would be something that legitimately serves the interests of justice and law enforcement.

                    An improper motive would be--say--attempting to prevent the public disclosure of information that you find personally embarrassing. Attempting to shield friends and family members from potential criminal exposure. Fear that prolonged investigatory scrutiny into the conduct being looked at by the special prosecutor may lead to the tangential discovery of other criminal behavior (i.e. the incidental discovery of campaign finance crimes in the Stormy Daniels matter, ongoing criminal matters related to the business practices of the Trump Organization in the Southern District of New York, etc ).

                    Mueller on-point:

                    "The evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events — such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’s release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians — could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family."

                    ^^^
                    That right there. That's Mueller laying out his theory of "improper motive." (and he spent a solid number of pages fleshing out his factual basis for believing that to be Trump's motivation)

                    Like--its clear to me just looking at this in a strictly legalistic sense that Mueller was thinking even if he personally didn't have authority to indict, he wanted to dot every (i) and cross every (t) for those who do.

                    Normally when you try to bring a criminal prosecution years after the underlying criminal activity you run into the problem of spoilation of evidence. Once clear recollections become fuzzy. Once preserved documents go missing. Stories change. Witnesses become unavailable. Hot leads go cold.

                    Mueller in his report, however, went out of his way to preserve on-the-record every witness recollection and present-sense impression and contemporaneous finding of fact Prosecutors will ever need to bring a case for obstruction of justice.

                    Mueller himself stopped just short of indicting the President. But he was very clearly writing with a mind for making the case to indict + preventing spoilation of evidence for post-presidency indictments.

                    Last edited by Post-Crisis Shob; April 22nd, 2019, 11:54 AM.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post

                      Incorrect--let me just clarify a point-of-law here. (Mueller actually did a pretty good job addressing this in the report)

                      Criminal Obstruction of Justice Charges do NOT require you to be a party to the conduct forming the subject matter of the investigation you are trying to obstruct.

                      It requires that you:

                      1) Take predicate acts to obstruct an ongoing investigation

                      2) Have an improper motive for so acting


                      A "proper" motive would be something that legitimately serves the interests of justice and law enforcement.

                      An improper motive would be--say--attempting to prevent the public disclosure of information that you find personally embarrassing. Attempting to shield friends and family members from potential criminal exposure. Fear that prolonged investigatory scrutiny into the conduct being looked at by the special prosecutor may lead to the tangential discovery of other criminal behavior (i.e. the incidental discovery of campaign finance crimes in the Stormy Daniels matter, ongoing criminal matters related to the business practices of the Trump Organization in the Southern District of New York, etc ).

                      Mueller on-point:

                      "The evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events — such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’s release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians — could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family."

                      ^^^
                      That right there. That's Mueller laying out his theory of "improper motive." (and he spent a solid number of pages fleshing out his factual basis for believing that to be Trump's motivation)

                      Like--its clear to me just looking at this in a strictly legalistic sense that Mueller was thinking even if he personally didn't have authority to indict, he wanted to dot every (i) and cross every (t) for those who do.

                      Normally when you try to bring a criminal prosecution years after the underlying criminal activity you run into the problem of spoilation of evidence. Once clear recollections become fuzzy. Once preserved documents go missing. Stories change. Witnesses become unavailable. Hot leads go cold.

                      Mueller in his report, however, went out of his way to preserve on-the-record every witness recollection and present-sense impression and contemporaneous finding of fact Prosecutors will ever need to bring a case for obstruction of justice.

                      Mueller himself stopped just short of indicting the President. But he was very clearly writing with a mind for making the case to indict + preventing spoilation of evidence for post-presidency indictments.
                      All of that is true.

                      But Mueller also stated in the report;

                      "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

                      And this was under his reasoning not to indict for obstruction. That's why I said what I did. Had the investigation expanded to include other illegal acts committed by Trump, obstruction would have stuck. But because they didn't uncover any criminal acts beyond obstruction, it would have been tough to hit him with the obstruction and not cause an uproar from republicans.

                      Comment


                        With all this talk of impeachment, you guys should watch this video:

                        It argues an impeachment case, but separate from the Mueller report, and boils down to effectively 2 points:

                        1. The war in Yemen. Trump is actively aiding what is an illegal war, and he recently vetoed a bipartisan bill to end it.
                        2. The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

                        Both of which are, seemingly, actually stronger than the case you could make from the Mueller Report, as both actually have firm roots in the Constitution, and Trump's violation of them is a lot clearer than the charge of obstruction. At the very least, these 2 points could aid an obstruction case.
                        Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; April 23rd, 2019, 12:32 AM.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Cid View Post

                          All of that is true.

                          But Mueller also stated in the report;

                          "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

                          And this was under his reasoning not to indict for obstruction. That's why I said what I did. Had the investigation expanded to include other illegal acts committed by Trump, obstruction would have stuck. But because they didn't uncover any criminal acts beyond obstruction, it would have been tough to hit him with the obstruction and not cause an uproar from republicans.
                          The Report as I read it seemed to indicate Mueller didn't indict because he didn't believe he had legal authority to indict; only legal authority to identify indictable conduct for impeachment proceedings or prosecution after Trump leaves office.

                          He says "affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct," Then he performs the analysis + lays out other motives that still constitute obstruction of justice.

                          Comment


                            When Fox News finally catches up with the rest of the world regarding Russia, Trump and everything around it. Holy fuck... lol wow

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post
                              When Fox News finally catches up with the rest of the world regarding Russia, Trump and everything around it.
                              Uh, no. Smith is probably the only Fox host who hasn't sold off the last bit of his dignity yet. I'm surprised he still works there.
                              Last edited by Raniero; April 24th, 2019, 06:56 AM.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Raniero View Post

                                Uh, no. Smith is probably the only Fox host who hasn't sold off the last bit of his dignity yet. I'm surprised he still works there.
                                Oh really? So he is their saving grace. They probably keep him there as their token liberal -- "Look guys! We are unbais! We hired a liberal!"


                                Reminds me of the whole token black guy friend trope.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post

                                  Oh really? So he is their saving grace. They probably keep him there as their token liberal -- "Look guys! We are unbais! We hired a liberal!"


                                  Reminds me of the whole token black guy friend trope.
                                  I bet the guy gets a ton of shit from his audience (YT comments sections especially). I feel kind of sorry for him. If he dropped Fox for another network I wouldn’t hold it against him.

                                  Whenever a news outlet has a dissenting political voice it tends to get ruthlessly crapped on...usually more than deserved anyway...
                                  Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; April 24th, 2019, 02:45 PM.

                                  Comment


                                    Although, I am legit curious...

                                    Kajin, what do you think of that video I posted? Do you watch Kyle Kulinski at all...?

                                    Comment


                                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.ed4800daa913

                                      "Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe"

                                      Barr is a clown
                                      Last edited by Raniero; April 30th, 2019, 07:52 PM.

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X