Trump

[shockfan89_]

Also let's stop acting like any investigators have done anything improper by having opinions of the subject of investigation. Unless it affects how evidence and testimony is treated and something illegal is done, there is no issue. Investigators are allowed to have opinions, it's impossible not to. So lets stop acting like these texts are some damning thing, ESPECIALLY when they include disparaging remarks related to Hilary as well.

The texts are extremely damning. In many areas they show conspiracy to commit crimes. Let's also not forget Mueller removed this person from the special counsel and didn't report why? Mueller knew this was a biased individual and that's why he was removed. Anything these agents worked on having to do with exonerating Clinton or accusing Trump will never be able to be used as evidence in a court of law based on these damning texts.

[ShockCrazy]

The texts are extremely damning. In many areas they show conspiracy to commit crimes. Let's also not forget Mueller removed this person from the special counsel and didn't report why? Mueller knew this was a biased individual and that's why he was removed. Anything these agents worked on having to do with exonerating Clinton or accusing Trump will never be able to be used as evidence in a court of law based on these damning texts.

What crimes? Show me. Show me one single piece of specific evidence of a conspiracy to commit crimes. Disparaging remarks aren't crimes. Why would he report it? If he's bee removed what's the point? And if your source is a freaking foxnews/breitbart article with some sort of exposition trying to extrapolate some context to the text it's not valid.

[shockfan89_]

What crimes? Show me. Show me one single piece of specific evidence of a conspiracy to commit crimes. Disparaging remarks aren't crimes. Why would he report it? If he's bee removed what's the point? And if your source is a freaking foxnews/breitbart article with some sort of exposition trying to extrapolate some context to the text it's not valid.

Strzok reportedly signed the documents launching the FBI's investigation of Trump/Russia but later admits in text there is probably no there, there. Did he knowingly make a false statement on a federal document or fabricate evidence to start the investigation? The insurance policy texts need to be investigated to see if something illegal was done. Strzok also changed the wording to exonerate Clinton even though he conducted interviews of Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and Comey even admitted under oath that they provided misleading (false statements) but they miraculously weren't charged because it is common for people to contradict themselves according to Comey. Boy, I bet Flynn and others would like that same benefit of the doubt.

Illegal spying on the Trump campaign if the dossier paid for by the DNC, FBI, and Obama administration was used to obtain a FISA warrant.

And this doesn't even touch on several other concerns in the texts including the "secret society" reference and plotting to continue the plan against Trump.

If Strzok, or any other federal official, allowed their political views to further an investigation or end an investigation that could have impacted the outcome of the election, those would all be felonies. It would need to be proven, but the facts we already know would indicate it is more likely than not that several federal officials tried to impact the election.

At the very least, the Mueller probe should be halted until these investigations have been completed and the infamous memo has been made public. This entire investigation looks to be based on false documents and false statements. The texts go a long way to substantiate that and provide evidence of wrong-doing.

It's funny that you need specific evidence of a crime to even investigate FBI and DOJ wrong-doing but you haven't seen any evidence of Russian collusion by Trump and you are all for that investigation moving forward. The texts provide more circumstantial evidence of criminal acts than anything that has been produced against the Trump campaign.

[jdshock]

Re: investigators/text messages -

This is incredibly simple. The individuals who were part of those text messages really screwed up. They should've been removed from the team, and they were.

But these things happen all. the. time. Police officers/witnesses/etc. are constantly being found to have improper motives or whatever else. It doesn't derail the entire investigation. You fire that individual, you authenticate the evidence they found, and you move on. It seriously happens all the time. There's absolutely zero reason to "halt the investigation."

Also, shockfan89_ , re: the infamous memo. Your guy DT can release it.

[wufan]

Why did Trump wait until the Russia investigation started to fire Comey? There was cause before but it wasn't until Trump's tree was being barked up, that Comey suddenly became an issue. Even if Trump wasn't personally being investigated, Donald Trump has said he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. That's obstruction of justice by definition. It doesn't matter if it wasn't targeting him, if he fired Comey because he wanted the investigation stopped or slowed, it is obstruction of justice full stop. I can't go screw with a random police investigation even if it has nothing to do with me, that's the law.

Why didnt Trump fire Comey sooner? Probably because he thought Comey was going to go after Hillary.

When the President fires someone for any reason, even if it was because he was investigating Trumps role in gov, it’s not neccessarily or even likely obstruction. He has the power to do that. It is possibly unethical, probably a bad decision, and definitely a bad look.

You cant go screw with a random police officer to slow an investigation, but the president can.

[ShockCrazy]

Why didnt Trump fire Comey sooner? Probably because he thought Comey was going to go after Hillary.

When the President fires someone for any reason, even if it was because he was investigating Trumps role in gov, it’s not neccessarily or even likely obstruction. He has the power to do that. It is possibly unethical, probably a bad decision, and definitely a bad look.

You cant go screw with a random police officer to slow an investigation, but the president can.

No he can't not with that intent. If it's just a consequence of his actions that's fine. He cannot legally make that action if his intent is to slow or close and investigation.

[jdshock]

You cant go screw with a random police officer to slow an investigation, but the president can.

Where are you getting that information from? I don't think it's nearly that cut and dry.

We don't have a ton of criminal law interpreting presidents' authority in these areas. Most of the stuff comes from the Nixon era and some from the Clinton era. I have a hard time believing the president is just freely able to go "screw with a random police officer to slow an investigation."

[ShockCrazy]

Re: investigators/text messages -

This is incredibly simple. The individuals who were part of those text messages really screwed up. They should've been removed from the team, and they were.

But these things happen all. the. time. Police officers/witnesses/etc. are constantly being found to have improper motives or whatever else. It doesn't derail the entire investigation. You fire that individual, you authenticate the evidence they found, and you move on. It seriously happens all the time. There's absolutely zero reason to "halt the investigation."

Also, shockfan89_ , re: the infamous memo. Your guy DT can release it.

Indeed the memo is the most laughable garbage ever. Why if it was so damning of the DOJ and FBI wouldn't the party who is in power and the subject of the investigation just release it? Maybe because it's just speculative nonsense and really contains no real revelations...

[wufan]

Re: investigators/text messages -

This is incredibly simple. The individuals who were part of those text messages really screwed up. They should've been removed from the team, and they were.

But these things happen all. the. time. Police officers/witnesses/etc. are constantly being found to have improper motives or whatever else. It doesn't derail the entire investigation. You fire that individual, you authenticate the evidence they found, and you move on. It seriously happens all the time. There's absolutely zero reason to "halt the investigation."

Also, shockfan89_ , re: the infamous memo. Your guy DT can release it.

Quoting jdshock to expand my opinion, not disagree.

The text messages aren’t evidence that the FBI and DOJ are corrupt. They are possibly unethical, and could show more, and they are certainly a bad look. When they were texting about the Russian meddling as a plan B for the unthinkable, that was a pretty good indication that they weren’t following justice blindly. When Hillary was known to be exonerated prior to being interviewed, that’s a bit of a problem. Neither of those things means that there was an institutional bias against Trump.

Probably the the best argument against this is that Trump hasn’t released the privileged information yet. He almost certainly would have to exonerate himself if it was there.

As as a country, we all need to hope that a handful of low ranking individuals had alterior motives rather than the alternative...that our DOJ is politically motivated towards certain parties or individuals.

[WuDrWu]

Edit to add: wealth disparity does not come from the gap between non workers and the middle class. Wealth disparity comes from the middle class and the ultra wealthy. If you make 100k, that's pretty good money, but it's only five times what someone in poverty makes. It's not uncommon for billionaires to gain a billion dollars in wealth in a year (notably, none to very little of that is "income"), that's 10,000 times the person making 100,000.

And you're doing the same thing you're complaining about wufan doing. Misrepresenting numbers. Yes, those are large figures and your underlying point that there is something inherently bad with that is completely unfounded. Yet, what are we talking about....maybe 500 people? Ooooo....and even most of those are NOT adding a BILLION every year, no matter how hard you try to demonize the wealthy.

But, let's play a game shall we? 500 or so US billionaires. Let's say they ALL are bad. They all made their money off slaves and the poor. So we're going to take half of everything they have (which you and I know we can't do even if we wanted to because those dollars aren't liquid and doing that would likely cripple the economy) or half a trillion dollars. And we'll just give it to your 20 million that really, really want to work so very hard and have so many skills and have done everything possible to join the work force....we'll just give them the money that they deserve so clearly, since it's been taken from them in other ways.

HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. And NOT to wufan's crazy number of 80 million that's WAY WAY OFF. We'll say your 20 million. 500 billion divided by 20 million. Anyone? Bueller?

That, I believe is around $25,000. What have you fixed? Well, for starters, you just became a really good politician because you instantly wasted a half a trillion dollars. What else have you done? Spiked the drug trade? Anything else? You libs and your pie in the sky ideas are for the birds. Some of you are smart people and yes jdshock I believe is incredibly intelligent, but lack a lot of useful common sense and troubleshooting ability. Stop being mad at the rich. Please. It's not helping ANYTHING.

And if ShockCrazy wants to talk about repeating the mistakes of the late 20s and 30s, I suggest he open a history book and see how the rich were demonized and how also everyone in a white collar job got lumped into that group. The mistakes made are not largely made by the wealthy. They are made by the poor and those that don't want to work. That's the largest and hardest problem to beat. It's NOT the wealthy. And the more we protect and coddle and create programs that foster and encourage not working, the worse it gets. Period.

[Kung Wu]

Where are you getting that information from? I don't think it's nearly that cut and dry.

We don't have a ton of criminal law interpreting presidents' authority in these areas. Most of the stuff comes from the Nixon era and some from the Clinton era. I have a hard time believing the president is just freely able to go "screw with a random police officer to slow an investigation."

Justice Stephen Field of the Supreme Court in Ex parte Garland held that:

"10. The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control."

and

"11. A pardon reaches the punishment prescribed for an offence and the guilt of the offender. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights."

If Field is correct, the President's power to pardon can realistically shut down practically any federal law enforcement investigation (excluding an impeachment process), and he can do that for any reason he wants and without legislative or judicial oversight.

[wufan]

I used the term “screw” because that was the term used by ShockCrazy. That wasn’t my term.

What I meant was (and I’m not a legal expert) that the POTUS has the authority to issue executive power on what should and should not be prosecuted.

As a for instance; let’s say that a person or several persons did something illegal or were in the act of doing something illegal. Maybe it was something that a certain percentage of the country didn’t think should be illegal. Maybe something like overstaying a visa or entering the country without going through a border check point. The POTUS could simply tell the federal authorities not to investigate and not to prosecute.

[ShockCrazy]

That's such a false equivalence. Butt let's pretend it is equivalent. You don't think there's a difference in that one action has no direct benefit to the president and the other protects both his campaign and presidential staff from prosecution? I thought Donald was all into law and order and the rule of law.

[wufan]

Under the law, he POTUS has executive authority to tell any federal authority to execute or not execute existing law. He also has the power to pardon anyone before, during or after sentencing in a federal case. He also has the ability to fire federal employees.

There are three statutes of illegal obstruction that I am aware of. There is no verbiage that firing a special DOJ meets this definition, even if the DOJ is investigating the president, unless you can prove that the intent was to stall the investigation and that it was successful in doing so. I don’t think there is much of a case for this.

[ShockCrazy]

And you're doing the same thing you're complaining about wufan doing. Misrepresenting numbers. Yes, those are large figures and your underlying point that there is something inherently bad with that is completely unfounded. Yet, what are we talking about....maybe 500 people? Ooooo....and even most of those are NOT adding a BILLION every year, no matter how hard you try to demonize the wealthy.

But, let's play a game shall we? 500 or so US billionaires. Let's say they ALL are bad. They all made their money off slaves and the poor. So we're going to take half of everything they have (which you and I know we can't do even if we wanted to because those dollars aren't liquid and doing that would likely cripple the economy) or half a trillion dollars. And we'll just give it to your 20 million that really, really want to work so very hard and have so many skills and have done everything possible to join the work force....we'll just give them the money that they deserve so clearly, since it's been taken from them in other ways.

HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. And NOT to wufan's crazy number of 80 million that's WAY WAY OFF. We'll say your 20 million. 500 billion divided by 20 million. Anyone? Bueller?

That, I believe is around $25,000. What have you fixed? Well, for starters, you just became a really good politician because you instantly wasted a half a trillion dollars. What else have you done? Spiked the drug trade? Anything else? You libs and your pie in the sky ideas are for the birds. Some of you are smart people and yes jdshock I believe is incredibly intelligent, but lack a lot of useful common sense and troubleshooting ability. Stop being mad at the rich. Please. It's not helping ANYTHING.

And if ShockCrazy wants to talk about repeating the mistakes of the late 20s and 30s, I suggest he open a history book and see how the rich were demonized and how also everyone in a white collar job got lumped into that group. The mistakes made are not largely made by the wealthy. They are made by the poor and those that don't want to work. That's the largest and hardest problem to beat. It's NOT the wealthy. And the more we protect and coddle and create programs that foster and encourage not working, the worse it gets. Period.

You talk of a history book, but are you honestly suggesting that the Great Depression was caused by the poor? Are you for real? WHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAT??? Yeah it was totally the poor lazy workers who caused a run on banks(because obviously they had all the money to take from the banks), it was totally the poor who were handing loans out like crazy creating a debt crisis. I love this idea that the wealthy hold no power, and that they aren't responsible for the flaws in the policy they sought. Perhaps you ought to be the one to crack a history book and understand the myriad of factors that caused the Great Depression, it certainly wasn't the policy and actions of the poor. You have an impossibly cynical view of humanity, the poor, their desire to better themselves. That's kind of sad.

[jdshock]

And you're doing the same thing you're complaining about wufan doing. Misrepresenting numbers. Yes, those are large figures and your underlying point that there is something inherently bad with that is completely unfounded. Yet, what are we talking about....maybe 500 people? Ooooo....and even most of those are NOT adding a BILLION every year, no matter how hard you try to demonize the wealthy.

I'll bite.

Maybe we are talking about 500 people, but that's my concern. Particularly as we begin to move into the era of AI and automation. If 500 individuals have nearly limitless resources for investment in these technologies, we will usher in a new era where only those individuals have the capital to get obscenely wealthy. We're talking trillions of dollars, while the rest have essentially nothing. More importantly, how can you possibly justify taxing those 500 people at the same marginal rate as individuals making 400k a year? How does that make any sense?

Wealth disparity is bad because it (1) nullifies the capitalistic incentives to work hard; seeing generation after generation live in extravagance because they were born into wealth, causes other workers to become bitter and creating a system where the highest levels of wealth are unattainable out of poverty obviously gets rid of some of the incentives that capitalism is supposed to be good at. This is all not to mention that it reduces the incentives for children with generational wealth. If I know I'm set for life, I'm not going to grind the way I would otherwise. (2) I, at my foundation, believe in equal opportunities, and generational wealth creates massive disparities between opportunities available to people.

The system is bad now, sure... but the primary concern is that we are as bad as we've ever been and the signs all indicate it's going to get worse. If we truly live in an economy where a dozen individuals have trillions of dollars, we're in a bad spot.

But, let's play a game shall we? 500 or so US billionaires. Let's say they ALL are bad. They all made their money off slaves and the poor. So we're going to take half of everything they have (which you and I know we can't do even if we wanted to because those dollars aren't liquid and doing that would likely cripple the economy) or half a trillion dollars. And we'll just give it to your 20 million that really, really want to work so very hard and have so many skills and have done everything possible to join the work force....we'll just give them the money that they deserve so clearly, since it's been taken from them in other ways.

HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. And NOT to wufan's crazy number of 80 million that's WAY WAY OFF. We'll say your 20 million. 500 billion divided by 20 million. Anyone? Bueller?

That, I believe is around $25,000. What have you fixed? Well, for starters, you just became a really good politician because you instantly wasted a half a trillion dollars. What else have you done? Spiked the drug trade? Anything else? You libs and your pie in the sky ideas are for the birds. Some of you are smart people and yes jdshock I believe is incredibly intelligent, but lack a lot of useful common sense and troubleshooting ability. Stop being mad at the rich. Please. It's not helping ANYTHING.

I certainly don't think all wealthy people are bad, and I don't think having money means you're bad.

I agree whole heartedly on the drug trade point. I lean toward wanting a more paternalistic government than a lot of UBI proponents, and certainly more than most true conservatives would want. This is one of the biggest areas of concern. I don't know how to get around it, though. Food stamps get used for drugs, you know? I'm not sure that cash is inherently worse for drug purchases than current social services. It might be, and I'm definitely open to thoughts on that. That said, I do not think it's a problem unique to universal basic income. Any time you have a social service, you're going to risk the money/product/whatever being used for the wrong thing.

And if ShockCrazy wants to talk about repeating the mistakes of the late 20s and 30s, I suggest he open a history book and see how the rich were demonized and how also everyone in a white collar job got lumped into that group. The mistakes made are not largely made by the wealthy. They are made by the poor and those that don't want to work. That's the largest and hardest problem to beat. It's NOT the wealthy. And the more we protect and coddle and create programs that foster and encourage not working, the worse it gets. Period.

I hear where you're coming from, but I don't think you're addressing the core issue of my post (@kung wu provided great thoughts on the topic):

There aren't going to be jobs. It's not going to be about laziness. It's not going to be about skill. There won't be jobs. First it is going to be all unskilled labor. Then it is going to be the trades. Then it's going to be professional jobs. The number one legal research companies are working on AI to write legal briefs. Even jobs that can't be completely replaced by automation, we're going to see massive unemployment. For five doctors we have now, we'll have one doctor and four machines. Think about how massive the problem would be if it's even a fraction of what I'm saying. Let's say the economy needs 1/3 fewer jobs. 33% unemployment, across all sectors.

This is not about a quick fix. Our economy needs a transition for this next period. Everything, absolutely everything, will have to change. Work days will be shorter, there are going to be fewer jobs, product costs should fall drastically, etc. If we do not prepare for it, there are going to be major, major problems. Politicians are too focused on short term solutions, though. The only people talking about the long term issues with AI and automation are tech folks like Elon Musk and Bill Gates.

[Kung Wu]

Wow, Trump is going to position the Republicans as the champions of DACA and steal the Dems thunder -- and then turn around and use that as leverage to construct portions of the wall.

[shockfan89_]

Wow, Trump is going to position the Republicans as the champions of DACA and steal the Dems thunder -- and then turn around and use that as leverage to construct portions of the wall.

It's amazing that Trump just proposed amnesty and a path to citizenship for 1.8 million (1 million more than the 800,000 DACA individuals the Dems wanted) and the Dems won't accept the deal. Trump upset some conservatives by doing it, but the Dems look really bad now getting more than twice what they asked for and still not being willing to accept the deal.