Octopus Overlords

Wait, so...no jokes allowed? Or just no bad jokes? What about puns (no pun intended)?

Elect a clown, get a circus. That's what I say.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:38 pm Elect a clown, get a circus. That's what I say.

Now. Who's providing the bread?

Also, the self-pardon discussion reminds me of pure absurdity best expressed by George Carlin (and I bend the joke for my own purposes): Can the President, who is all powerful, create a rock so heavy...that He Himself can't lift it?

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:16 pm Enjoy another light helping of authoritarianism.

Out of curiosity, I watched that and listening to Guiliani, I wondered who was inviting him to spew more obstructionist propoganda... and Hannity flickered on at the last second thanking him. Ah. There we go.

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:18 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:35 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:28 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:30 pmOnly federal.

He can't pardon himself from federal charges either. The idea is asinine. That would essentially put the POTUS above the law.

I mean, that's the point.

But seriously, there is a credible argument that he can. The Constitution gives the President the power to pardon for federal offenses. It does not say anything limiting who he can pardon. You essentially have to read into "pardon" that it necessarily has to be for someone else, but that's not clear cut.

Great job, Founding Fathers.

That's not entirely fair/accurate.

While it's true that they made the pardon power pretty powerful, one can gather from their discussions that they never intended the President to be above consideration of the law. They always concluded that a traitor President would be subjec to BOTH impeachment and persecution.



An example would be in how they DID explicitly state how the Vice President would not play a role in an impeachment against the President, where normally the VP would indeed play a leading roll in the Senate's 'judiciary role' --- And Yet --- they never also bothered to point out explicatley that the VP would also NOT play a role in any impeachment proceedings against HIMSELF... it's implied that one cannot be a judge in one's one justice.

So, yeah - they blew it in not being delibrate in their wording there --- but ther is a lot pointing to them not being delibrate because they thought that point was obvious.

I'd have to do more research into the convention debates (and to some degree, into British royal pardon practices, really) to be fully informed on the question. That also gets into the perpetually debated question of how much it matters what the Founders collectively thought and meant when they were writing various clauses, vs. what they actually wrote.

In any event, as a practical matter there's enough of an argument for a self-pardon (and Trump doesn't give a shit sufficiently) that there isn't much stopping him from trying it. The question is who would do something about it. In theory a prosecutor could go ahead with an indictment and it would be settled in court, although that then gets into the other question of whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Thinking about it some more, the self-pardon may be more of a sideshow in the short term, unless Mueller (or a state AG, I suppose) decides that they can indict a sitting president and goes ahead with it. Because a pardon clearly can't stop impeachment, and the issue of Trump's personal criminal liability is probably going to be resolved after he is out of office (one way or the other).

Actual quote for those of us completely freaked out by the tweet which is not a quote

“Rosenstein and Jeff Sessions have a chance to redeem themselves, and that chance comes about tomorrow,” he told Hannity. “It doesn’t go beyond tomorrow. Tomorrow, Mueller should be suspended and honest people should be brought in, impartial people to investigate these people like Peter Strzok.”

“Strzok should be in jail by the end of next week,” he concluded.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ru ... fc01fcf73f

That sounds like bluster. Despicable bluster.

The tweet makes it sound like an ultimatum.

Even changing should to must in the summary does no service to anyone.

Don't let this clown mock and blatantly corrupt justice in your country.

Edit:. Sorry, thought that was Drumpf. It's giuliani. Who gives a crap what that Alzheimer's candidate thinks or says.

I don't understand why we continue to allow Trump and his associates to push the direction of the conversation. It was always unlikely Mueller would indict Trump prior to impeachment. If Mueller found/finds proof of crimes extensive enough to warrant indictment, he--or the Justice Department--would take that information to Congress.

The president is not above the law. The executive power and the way the three branches of government interact has always meant that Congress, and only Congress, is the immediate remedy to an unlawful president. Failing that, the voters decide.

By arguing the president can't be indicted, or arguing about whether he can pardon himself, the Trump team is distracting from the issue. Did Trump commit a crime? If the evidence says yes, then it goes to Congress. Any other argument, pardoning or indictment is allowing Trump to create doubt, which gives Republicans an easier way to avoid impeachment.

To put it another way, Trump and Giuliani are like Rip. They are moving the goalposts.

Mueller investigates Russian interference in the election. If Trump was involved he'd take that to Congress for impeachment.
Trump associates (hereafter Trumpasses) say "Wooooh there, you can't indict Trump, he's the president!" nodding heads sagely.
Anti-Trump people "What? That's crazy! He can be indicted. Mueller must save the country!" shaking heads in bewilderment.
Trumpasses, "But Trump didn't commit an indictable offense, he should pardon himself." rolling eyes.
Anti-Trump people frothing at the mouth, "OMG Trump's going to fire Mueller and pardon himself!"
Trumpasses, "Yep, he has that power, Muhahahahaha!" rubs mustaches.
Anti-Trump "We're doomed!" Forgetting entirely that it is and always will be about impeachment.

Look, I get the fear that this Republican Congress won't impeach Trump for anything. We are badly divided and there is a core group on each side that will support anything their side does. However, there is a point where if Mueller can find evidence of a real crime, Congress will have no choice but to impeach. Not all will vote that way, but enough will to remove him. If a crime can be proven.

You have more faith than I in the sycophantic GOP. This is a zero sum game to them where the law is less important than beating the evil democrats. Trump knows this and is taking full advantage, as does Fox News.

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:51 amHowever, there is a point where if Mueller can find evidence of a real crime, Congress will have no choice but to impeach.

Like, you realize there's already evidence of crimes, right?

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:27 pm Agreed. Wrong thread for that. Sorry, folks.

No worries. I just didn't get it so I thought I was missing something.

CNN

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort will await his trial for foreign lobbying charges from jail.

Two weeks after Robert Mueller's prosecutors dropped new accusations of witness tampering on him, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson Friday revoked Manafort's bail, which allowed him out on house arrest.
...
The judge emphasized to Manafort how she could not make enough rulings to keep him from speaking improperly with witnesses, after he had used multiple text messaging apps and called a potential witness on an Italian cell phone.

Lock Him Up.

"...thought about his long and hard..".....what??

Daehawk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:03 pm "...thought about his long and hard..".....what??

My uneducated assumption is that judges are hesitant to send people to jail. So she tried but couldn't think of any other way.

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/ ... 2656340993

Is it strange that I'm debating turning off all Fox related media and getting rid of cable to make sure Fox have no Lordmortis money until they fire Sean Hannity. I hate him and his influence that much.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:00 am

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:51 amHowever, there is a point where if Mueller can find evidence of a real crime, Congress will have no choice but to impeach.

Like, you realize there's already evidence of crimes, right?

Evidence of crimes by Trump? Enough that an unbiased jury would find him guilty?

I have no doubt Trump has a list of crimes a mile long that would land a normal person in jail and that’s why he’s fighting Mueller so hard. But actual evidence against Trump? The NY investigation has some. It’d be nice if it was enough. But I’m kind of doubting it.

msteelers wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:37 pm

Daehawk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:03 pm "...thought about his long and hard..".....what??

My uneducated assumption is that judges are hesitant to send people to jail. So she tried but couldn't think of any other way.

You're putting a "t" where there isn't one. I did too.


Good catch, DH.

Fitzy wrote:

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:00 am

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:51 amHowever, there is a point where if Mueller can find evidence of a real crime, Congress will have no choice but to impeach.

Like, you realize there's already evidence of crimes, right?

Evidence of crimes by Trump? Enough that an unbiased jury would find him guilty?

I have no doubt Trump has a list of crimes a mile long that would land a normal person in jail and that’s why he’s fighting Mueller so hard. But actual evidence against Trump? The NY investigation has some. It’d be nice if it was enough. But I’m kind of doubting it.

You mean like his public confession of obstruction to Lester Holt?

Decent vox article about evidence.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I think the IG report gives Trump a lot of cover for firing Comey. It doesn't do many of the things the right had hoped/thought it would, but it does do that. As with many firings it will be easy to state there were numerous reasons that weighed into the firing.Still possible to try and make the case but it is far from a cut and dry easily provable fact.

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:03 pm

Fitzy wrote:

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:00 am

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:51 amHowever, there is a point where if Mueller can find evidence of a real crime, Congress will have no choice but to impeach.

Like, you realize there's already evidence of crimes, right?

Evidence of crimes by Trump? Enough that an unbiased jury would find him guilty?

I have no doubt Trump has a list of crimes a mile long that would land a normal person in jail and that’s why he’s fighting Mueller so hard. But actual evidence against Trump? The NY investigation has some. It’d be nice if it was enough. But I’m kind of doubting it.

You mean like his public confession of obstruction to Lester Holt?

Decent vox article about evidence.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

What did he obstruct?

I am certain Trump is guilty of crimes, though I have my doubts the Russia thing is among them. He most likely wants the investigations ended because sooner or later they will stumble onto something. Assuming they haven't already, though I would hope if Mueller found an actual felony he would have gone straight to Congress.

Obstruction will never get through the impeachment process nor will enough of the American population push for impeachment if there isn't proof of an underlying crime. Find that crime, toss in obstruction and even the GOP will have no choice but to impeach. Without it, we risk permanently fracturing the country.

I want Trump out, but not badly enough to undermine our entire system further.

Rip wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:03 pm I think the IG report gives Trump a lot of cover for firing Comey. It doesn't do many of the things the right had hoped/thought it would, but it does do that. As with many firings it will be easy to state there were numerous reasons that weighed into the firing.Still possible to try and make the case but it is far from a cut and dry easily provable fact.

To those who support Trump yes. To those who don't it only angers them Comey didn't tamper with the election to save the process face. If course I've read very little and of that summary. 538 pages would take me weeks to read. So far all I've seen it do is entrench everyone in to their existing belief structure.

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:12 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:03 pm

Fitzy wrote:

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:00 am

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:51 amHowever, there is a point where if Mueller can find evidence of a real crime, Congress will have no choice but to impeach.

Like, you realize there's already evidence of crimes, right?

Evidence of crimes by Trump? Enough that an unbiased jury would find him guilty?

I have no doubt Trump has a list of crimes a mile long that would land a normal person in jail and that’s why he’s fighting Mueller so hard. But actual evidence against Trump? The NY investigation has some. It’d be nice if it was enough. But I’m kind of doubting it.

You mean like his public confession of obstruction to Lester Holt?

Decent vox article about evidence.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

What did he obstruct?

I am certain Trump is guilty of crimes, though I have my doubts the Russia thing is among them. He most likely wants the investigations ended because sooner or later they will stumble onto something. Assuming they haven't already, though I would hope if Mueller found an actual felony he would have gone straight to Congress.

Obstruction will never get through the impeachment process nor will enough of the American population push for impeachment if there isn't proof of an underlying crime. Find that crime, toss in obstruction and even the GOP will have no choice but to impeach. Without it, we risk permanently fracturing the country.

I want Trump out, but not badly enough to undermine our entire system further.

Comey was investigating the Trump campaign's connection to Russia. Trump (as he said to Holt) fired Comey because of that investigation of Russia. So he obstructed the investigation into Trump and Russia. That obstruction prompted Mueller's appointment.

There is also a ton of evidence on Trump and Russia.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

msteelers wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:37 pm

Daehawk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:03 pm "...thought about his long and hard..".....what??

My uneducated assumption is that judges are hesitant to send people to jail. So she tried but couldn't think of any other way.

You're putting a "t" where there isn't one. I did too.


Good catch, DH.

Lol!

Fitzy wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:03 pm

Fitzy wrote:

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:00 am

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:51 amHowever, there is a point where if Mueller can find evidence of a real crime, Congress will have no choice but to impeach.

Like, you realize there's already evidence of crimes, right?

Evidence of crimes by Trump? Enough that an unbiased jury would find him guilty?

I have no doubt Trump has a list of crimes a mile long that would land a normal person in jail and that’s why he’s fighting Mueller so hard. But actual evidence against Trump? The NY investigation has some. It’d be nice if it was enough. But I’m kind of doubting it.

You mean like his public confession of obstruction to Lester Holt?

Decent vox article about evidence.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

What did he obstruct?

I am certain Trump is guilty of crimes, though I have my doubts the Russia thing is among them. He most likely wants the investigations ended because sooner or later they will stumble onto something. Assuming they haven't already, though I would hope if Mueller found an actual felony he would have gone straight to Congress.

Obstruction will never get through the impeachment process nor will enough of the American population push for impeachment if there isn't proof of an underlying crime. Find that crime, toss in obstruction and even the GOP will have no choice but to impeach. Without it, we risk permanently fracturing the country.

I want Trump out, but not badly enough to undermine our entire system further.

Two things.

Everything I've seen from reputable sources suggest Mueller would NOT cut the investigation short even for felonies. The investigation into election shenanigans were already and had been ongoing for years, per Carter Paige, Flynn, and Manafort. Such that the "Russia investigation" has provided 20 indictments and multiple guilty pleas. Prior to to the suspects involvement in the campaign. And also their involvement in the campaign Ala Papadapoulos. When Trump fired Comey and then repeatedly, including on camera said it was to rid himself of the Russia thing. It was widely considered the text book obstruction.
Second. You're moving the goal posts. You didn't ask for evidence of a crime so heinous that the republican held congress would act against their perceived political interests. Just a crime. There mountains of evidence of dozens of crimes. But congress, particularly Nunes protected by Ryan and McConnell has done everything they can to ignore, obfuscate, and discredit the investigations into said crimes.
I don't know that said crime exists. His personal lawyer certainly doesn't think so. And even reiterated Trumps supposed right to shoot someone in times Square. Emoluments aren't enough, rampant corruption isn't enough, obstruction isn't enough, sexual Assault, fraud etc.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:22 pm

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:12 pm What did he obstruct?

I am certain Trump is guilty of crimes, though I have my doubts the Russia thing is among them. He most likely wants the investigations ended because sooner or later they will stumble onto something. Assuming they haven't already, though I would hope if Mueller found an actual felony he would have gone straight to Congress.

Obstruction will never get through the impeachment process nor will enough of the American population push for impeachment if there isn't proof of an underlying crime. Find that crime, toss in obstruction and even the GOP will have no choice but to impeach. Without it, we risk permanently fracturing the country.

I want Trump out, but not badly enough to undermine our entire system further.

Comey was investigating the Trump campaign's connection to Russia. Trump (as he said to Holt) fired Comey because of that investigation of Russia. So he obstructed the investigation into Trump and Russia. That obstruction prompted Mueller's appointment.

There is also a ton of evidence on Trump and Russia.

Would you take a case similar to what’s outlined in the article to a jury? There’s a lot going on around Trump. His people are as scummy as him. Maybe I’m being too picky, but I’m just not seeing where he committed a crime with Russia based on what has been publicly released.

Put another way. Hypothetically, if Trump really did not collude with Russia. Would it be obstruction for him to fire Comey, knowing he (Trump) didn’t commit a crime?

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:51 pm Second. You're moving the goal posts. You didn't ask for evidence of a crime so heinous that the republican held congress would act against their perceived political interests.

My entire original argument was literally that we should be concentrating on impeachable offenses and stop worrying about Trump and his assholes trying to throw strawmen into the discussion by tossing out the idea that he can’t be indicted or could pardon himself.

That you, or someone else, cut that out to concentrate on a tiny part of my statement does not make for moving the goalposts by me.

So yes. I did actually ask for crimes that are impeachable and would be held so by enough of the GOP to impeach. Because that is, until 2020, the only type of crime that matters.

Fitzy wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:51 pm Second. You're moving the goal posts. You didn't ask for evidence of a crime so heinous that the republican held congress would act against their perceived political interests.

My entire original argument was literally that we should be concentrating on impeachable offenses and stop worrying about Trump and his assholes trying to throw strawmen into the discussion by tossing out the idea that he can’t be indicted or could pardon himself.

That you, or someone else, cut that out to concentrate on a tiny part of my statement does not make for moving the goalposts by me.

So yes. I did actually ask for crimes that are impeachable and would be held so by enough of the GOP to impeach. Because that is, until 2020, the only type of crime that matters.

Then look to the second half of my post. It's not about evidence, crimes, or impeachiness. It's pure politics at this point. There's plenty of all three.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Edit: and an unbiased jury had ZERO to do with impeachment. Congress is about as far from unbiased as you can get.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:58 am You have more faith than I in the sycophantic GOP. This is a zero sum game to them where the law is less important than beating the evil democrats. Trump knows this and is taking full advantage, as does Fox News.

I was on a phone when I posted this, but the evidence is right there in Congress - McConnell and Ryan/McCarthy won't allow anything to come to the floor - look at DACA - the only thing being considered in the House are the pure-GOP bills, and the bipartisan measure isn't being allowed a vote - ditto with Net Neutrality - McConnell did everything he could to avoid it being a vote, and the vote had to be forced by the individual Senators, and now it can't get a vote in the House. Look at Garland/Gorsuch.

This is 100% zero-sum politics to the benefit of the GOP, not at the expense of the Democrats, but actually the entire country. Ryan/McCarthy will NOT allow an Impeachment Vote*.

* I could see Ryan allowing one in a lame-duck session after the election, if he's still on.

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:23 pm

Fitzy wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:51 pm Second. You're moving the goal posts. You didn't ask for evidence of a crime so heinous that the republican held congress would act against their perceived political interests.

My entire original argument was literally that we should be concentrating on impeachable offenses and stop worrying about Trump and his assholes trying to throw strawmen into the discussion by tossing out the idea that he can’t be indicted or could pardon himself.

That you, or someone else, cut that out to concentrate on a tiny part of my statement does not make for moving the goalposts by me.

So yes. I did actually ask for crimes that are impeachable and would be held so by enough of the GOP to impeach. Because that is, until 2020, the only type of crime that matters.

Then look to the second half of my post. It's not about evidence, crimes, or impeachiness. It's pure politics at this point. There's plenty of all three.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Edit: and an unbiased jury had ZERO to do with impeachment. Congress is about as far from unbiased as you can get.

Of course it’s politics. Impeachment is inherently political. It’s also the only way to get rid of Trump before 2020.

I asked about the jury because if you couldn’t get a conviction with a jury, there is no way it would have a chance at impeachment. Not because i was comparing it to impeachment or claiming Congress is unbiased. Again, that is the opposite of what I said. Congress is biased. You need 67 Senators to convict.

The Clinton impeachment set the standard.

Article I, perjury. Not guilty.
Article III, obstruction of justice. Not Guilty.

If Republicans, and there were some who voted no, were unwilling to convict Bill Clinton of obstruction, why would they now do so to Trump? Unless, maybe there was an underlying crime big enough to require it? Which, has been my damn argument the entire time. There has to be actual, irrefutable, evidence of an underlying serious crime to get impeachment. That’s it. That’s all I’m saying. How is this even controversial?

Apparently witness tampering is not that big a deal as long as your not trying to kill the witness; from career attorney, prosecutor and USA Rudy
Giuliani.

“You put a guy in jail if he’s trying to kill witnesses, not just talking to witnesses," Giuliani said. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-manafor ... e-pardons/

Fitzy wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:23 pm

Fitzy wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:51 pm Second. You're moving the goal posts. You didn't ask for evidence of a crime so heinous that the republican held congress would act against their perceived political interests.

My entire original argument was literally that we should be concentrating on impeachable offenses and stop worrying about Trump and his assholes trying to throw strawmen into the discussion by tossing out the idea that he can’t be indicted or could pardon himself.

That you, or someone else, cut that out to concentrate on a tiny part of my statement does not make for moving the goalposts by me.

So yes. I did actually ask for crimes that are impeachable and would be held so by enough of the GOP to impeach. Because that is, until 2020, the only type of crime that matters.

Then look to the second half of my post. It's not about evidence, crimes, or impeachiness. It's pure politics at this point. There's plenty of all three.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Edit: and an unbiased jury had ZERO to do with impeachment. Congress is about as far from unbiased as you can get.

Of course it’s politics. Impeachment is inherently political. It’s also the only way to get rid of Trump before 2020.

I asked about the jury because if you couldn’t get a conviction with a jury, there is no way it would have a chance at impeachment. Not because i was comparing it to impeachment or claiming Congress is unbiased. Again, that is the opposite of what I said. Congress is biased. You need 67 Senators to convict.

The Clinton impeachment set the standard.

Article I, perjury. Not guilty.
Article III, obstruction of justice. Not Guilty.

If Republicans, and there were some who voted no, were unwilling to convict Bill Clinton of obstruction, why would they now do so to Trump? Unless, maybe there was an underlying crime big enough to require it? Which, has been my damn argument the entire time. There has to be actual, irrefutable, evidence of an underlying serious crime to get impeachment. That’s it. That’s all I’m saying. How is this even controversial?

I don't disagree with most of what you're say g but the Clinton comparisons are tired and the situations order of magnitude different. Nixons better, and in his case didn't lose support till 18 months into the investigation AFTER the massacre.

Second an impartial jury would be much more likely to convict if they could. And point of fact between grand juries and juries have indicted and convicted quite a few of the tertiary players.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:22 pm I don't disagree with most of what you're say g but the Clinton comparisons are tired and the situations order of magnitude different. Nixons better, and in his case didn't lose support till 18 months into the investigation AFTER the massacre.

Second an impartial jury would be much more likely to convict if they could. And point of fact between grand juries and juries have indicted and convicted quite a few of the tertiary players.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I had something else I was going to say, but I read the Nixon articles of impeachment and I’ve been looking at this wrong. I’ve been under the impression that Nixon obstructed a crime he committed, the break-in. Or ordered I guess. Not that I thought he literally broke into the watergate, though that is a funny image. But there is no direct evidence he knew about it before hand. Just that he covered it up afterward.

So, if Trump has been trying to end the Russia investigation, knowing there was a crime by the Russians and others, not to cover up his crime, but to cover up other peoples crimes possibly because his narcissim wouldn’t allow him to admit to having been helped by the Russians or because he knew his people had done things, there would be obstruction.

I was wrong.

It’s possible Mueller could show obstruction without Trump having committed the crime of collusion. Which would make the yelling around by his people about it not possible to commit obstruction more dangerous than I thought. Since that would be less about trying to distract and not at all about the strawman arguements I thought they were making to avoid the impeachment talks.

I apologize. I was wrong. You guys were right. I was looking at this whole thing completely wrong.

Fitzy wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:22 pm I don't disagree with most of what you're say g but the Clinton comparisons are tired and the situations order of magnitude different. Nixons better, and in his case didn't lose support till 18 months into the investigation AFTER the massacre.

Second an impartial jury would be much more likely to convict if they could. And point of fact between grand juries and juries have indicted and convicted quite a few of the tertiary players.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I had something else I was going to say, but I read the Nixon articles of impeachment and I’ve been looking at this wrong. I’ve been under the impression that Nixon obstructed a crime he committed, the break-in. Or ordered I guess. Not that I thought he literally broke into the watergate, though that is a funny image. But there is no direct evidence he knew about it before hand. Just that he covered it up afterward.

So, if Trump has been trying to end the Russia investigation, knowing there was a crime by the Russians and others, not to cover up his crime, but to cover up other peoples crimes possibly because his narcissim wouldn’t allow him to admit to having been helped by the Russians or because he knew his people had done things, there would be obstruction.

I was wrong.

It’s possible Mueller could show obstruction without Trump having committed the crime of collusion. Which would make the yelling around by his people about it not possible to commit obstruction more dangerous than I thought. Since that would be less about trying to distract and not at all about the strawman arguements I thought they were making to avoid the impeachment talks.

I apologize. I was wrong. You guys were right. I was looking at this whole thing completely wrong.

:p it's one of the reasons the he's a mad genius argument is patently absurd. There are a litany of times this whole thing could have been diffused, blown over, been ignored, or scapegoated on someone else, But nooooo, El presidente is incapable of using self deprication or subtlety.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:53 pm :p it's one of the reasons the he's a mad genius argument is patently absurd. There are a litany of times this whole thing could have been diffused, blown over, been ignored, or scapegoated on someone else, But nooooo, El presidente is incapable of using self deprication or subtlety.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

i agree with that. I was close with a narcissist until they turned that hell on me. There is no admitting they are wrong, no possibility of them even being wrong. And Trump is even a freaking crazy, screaming narcissist, who doesn’t even know what subtle means.

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:22 pm

I apologize. I was wrong. You guys were right. I was looking at this whole thing completely wrong.

Except in all practical terms you are totally right. I'm convinced that in our old timeline there is enough evidence right now to prove Trump committed obstruction. But, as you said, none of that matters if you can't get impeachment. I think your point is still incontrovertable - if there is no smoking gun evidence of a crime greater than obstruction the Republicans will never pass an impeachment vote. I think there has to be evidence of mob ties or money laundering before enough R's will break with the party. Or Trump literally shoots someone on 5th avenue just so he can see if he gets away with it.

gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:39 am

Fitzy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:22 pm

I apologize. I was wrong. You guys were right. I was looking at this whole thing completely wrong.

Except in all practical terms you are totally right. I'm convinced that in our old timeline there is enough evidence right now to prove Trump committed obstruction. But, as you said, none of that matters if you can't get impeachment. I think your point is still incontrovertable - if there is no smoking gun evidence of a crime greater than obstruction the Republicans will never pass an impeachment vote. I think there has to be evidence of mob ties or money laundering before enough R's will break with the party. Or Trump literally shoots someone on 5th avenue just so he can see if he gets away with it.

I am curious (well sort of, I’d prefer a smoking gun against Trump for a full on crime everyone understands) if Mueller comes to Congress with clear evidence of crimes by Manafort and others, maybe even outright convictions of something other than lying to a federal agent, and he can show a clear evidence based pattern of obstruction whereby Trump tried to stop other people from being convicted, what would the GOP do? It would be similar to Nixon. Would it be enough to peel away 10-15 percentage points from Trump? Would that be enough to force the GOP to turn on him?

I fear/suspect that your/my point is probably true. Without the video of Trump shooting someone, we are too divided to force him out through impeachment.

Though I now believe he should be and the evidence is strong enough for obstruction, assuming everything in the media is true.

I value due process. I do not want anyone to go to jail if they can't be proven to have committed a crime. That doesn't mean that when someone gets off on a technicality I think they are innocent, I just don't want them going to jail. Law and due process are amongst the most important aspects of our society. Being unable to convict doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime, they just can't be convicted of it, as it should be.

With that said, knowing what I know about drumpf's history, I have zero reservations about believing he committed a whole host of crimes. I will talk as if he's guilty because I absolutely believe that he is. If someone were to suggest that we convict him based on my beliefs, I would balk immediately.

But he's guilty. At this point I'm simply waiting and hoping that Meuller can prove it.