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

  • Post-Crisis Shob
    started a topic T5 Official Discussion: The Trump Presidency

    T5 Official Discussion: The Trump Presidency

    Well its official. Trump is president. So now we have an official thread for it.

    This thread is for all discussion of presidential politics. For hopefully no more than the next 4 years.

    Please enjoy responsibly.

  • Cid
    commented on 's reply
    lmao

  • Post-Crisis Shob
    replied
    Great--just what this country needs.

    More people from Alabama

    Leave a comment:


  • Cid
    replied
    http://saladinoforcongress.com/

    lolololololol

    Leave a comment:


  • Sheko
    replied
    Originally posted by Cid View Post
    So, Alabama has been in the news the last couple days.
    Lol

    Leave a comment:


  • Cid
    replied
    So, Alabama has been in the news the last couple days.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kajin_Style
    replied
    lol I think republicans are finally catching on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raniero
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RussianCoffeeAddict
    replied
    Although, I am legit curious...

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

    Leave a comment:


  • RussianCoffeeAddict
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kajin_Style
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raniero
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DokTOR.
    commented on 's reply
    "Peragon"

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Post-Crisis Shob
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RussianCoffeeAddict
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cid
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Post-Crisis Shob
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kajin_Style
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Kajin_Style
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X