Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Don't think it was a "bot" who composed this one was it?

    Hilda.jpg
    Last edited by ShockingButTrue; 1 week ago.

    Comment


  • Mueller worked for DoJ. DoJ policy is that a sitting President CANNOT be indicted. Mueller did not indict Trump. Trump is now saying that means he was exonerated, which is not true. Nearly 1,000 Federal prosecutors say there is enough evidence in the redacted version to bring charges against anyone in the nation EXCEPT for the President.

    If a sitting President cannot be indicted, then either the President is above the law and can break any law with no consequences, or the manner of indicting a President, as set out in the Constitution, is followed. Here's how that goes.

    1. Either the House or a Special Prosecutor initiates an investigation, in this case it was a special prosecutor.
    2. The House is responsible for initiating legal action against a President.
    3. That means the House has some pretty wide latitude in asking for information. This has been affirmed in recent court rulings.
    4. If an indictment is to be served on a President, the House investigates and begins impeachment proceedings.
    5. If the House impeaches the President, then the Senate votes on removing the President from office.
    6. If the Senate removes the President from office, THEN an indictment can be served.
    I haven't heard anyone still claiming collusion. That issue seems to be over. The issue now is Obstruction, and Mueller provided A LOT of evidence for Obstruction. In addition, the House is well within its Constitutional rights to examine the finances of a President. As those cases are moving through the courts, the rulings are generally indicating that the House has very wide latitude in what they can look at.

    The Obstruction issue is still wide open. Calling for an end to the investigation because Mueller didn't indict is an argument that would indicate a President is absolutely above the law, which is absurd.

    If there is nothing to find, Trump should cooperate with the House. The House might "find" something where there is nothing, but that would create a PR disaster for the 2020 elections and almost certainly assure Trump a second term. Blocking everything is playing fairly well to Trump's base, but it's the independent voters who control who sits in the White House in 2021.

    Trump's apparent stance of "I refuse to allow you to investigate me" is incredibly bad optics and is only looking like the best course of action to the most hard-core of his supporters. The Constitution assigns the responsibility of oversight of the Executive branch to the House.

    Trump is right when he says that if the House is allowed to continue investigating him, then the next time there's a Dem in the White House and Repubs control the House, that they can investigate the President for any reason and impeach the President on any grounds, That's actually the way it's supposed to work.

    A strict reading of the Constitution seems to indicate that Congress has allowed the Executive branch to take on things that Congress should control. We may be witnessing Congress taking back some of their responsibilities.
    The future's so bright - I gotta wear shades.
    We like to cut down nets and get sized for championship rings.

    Comment


    • shockfan89_
      shockfan89_ commented
      Editing a comment
      I totally disagree with your points. Those 1,000 Federal prosecutors are all politically motivated leftists just like the courts that have affirmed the ridiculous assertion that the House has any right to see POTUS financial records from when he was a private citizen. We were told if Trump is innocent why is he so against the Mueller investigation? Well, turns out he was innocent, he was against it because it was a huge waste of time. Now we are told if Trump has nothing to hide, why doesn't he let the House investigate? Because it doesn't matter! The case is already closed!!! The House has no right to investigate further. They have a right to act upon the information provided to them by the Special Prosecutor. Their choice is to now impeach or not to impeach. The problem is they wanted a different outcome from the Mueller probe and they didn't get it, so now they want to go find something they can use to impeach. We still have an investigation in search of a crime, rather than a criminal investigation. Very sad how this fake collusion charge can't just be called exactly what it was and move on.

      Everyone can agree there was no collusion. First of all, we have been promised for 2 years that there was collusion to justify this Special Prosecuter even though those that appointed the Special Prosecutor knew there was no collusion (since they fabricated the evidence of it).

      Secondly, and even more importantly, and all Trump hating leftists need to actually take a deep breath and just think about this for a minute. Obstruction of justice refers to impeding in some way, the due administration of justice (preventing the right, or just, outcome). Trump did not collude with Russia. Trump knew he did not collude with Russia, so there is no possible way Trump was interfering with the administration of justice. Even if he shutdown the Mueller probe, he would have been ensuring that justice occurred, just faster and more efficiently than Mueller did.

      Even if he did technically obstruct justice (interfered in some way), which I think is a huge stretch (because Mueller interviewed anyone he wanted to and all Trump officials fully cooperated, and Mueller issued his 400 page report), what was Trump's intent? What did he have to gain? His only intent for ending a phony investigation would have been to save taxpayer money from a fake investigation, and unite the country, and get to work on an agenda for making the country better. That is hardly an impeachable offense.

      What we actually have here is circumstantial evidence that Trump might have conspired to possibly obstruct an investigation that was allowed to run for 2 years and interview hundreds of witnesses. Oh, and keep in mind, this was an investigation that was started using fabricated, and planted evidence by now disgraced, politically motivated, members of the FBI and DOJ that have since by fired for their corrupt actions. The scary part is there are still idiots that think Trump is the one hiding something?
      Last edited by shockfan89_; 14 hours ago.

  • Why the hesitancy on impeachment then? Waiting for "public support?" Because it would help The Don?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Aargh View Post
      Mueller worked for DoJ. DoJ policy is that a sitting President CANNOT be indicted. Mueller did not indict Trump. Trump is now saying that means he was exonerated, which is not true. Nearly 1,000 Federal prosecutors say there is enough evidence in the redacted version to bring charges against anyone in the nation EXCEPT for the President.

      If a sitting President cannot be indicted, then either the President is above the law and can break any law with no consequences, or the manner of indicting a President, as set out in the Constitution, is followed. Here's how that goes.

      1. Either the House or a Special Prosecutor initiates an investigation, in this case it was a special prosecutor.
      2. The House is responsible for initiating legal action against a President.
      3. That means the House has some pretty wide latitude in asking for information. This has been affirmed in recent court rulings.
      4. If an indictment is to be served on a President, the House investigates and begins impeachment proceedings.
      5. If the House impeaches the President, then the Senate votes on removing the President from office.
      6. If the Senate removes the President from office, THEN an indictment can be served.
      I haven't heard anyone still claiming collusion. That issue seems to be over. The issue now is Obstruction, and Mueller provided A LOT of evidence for Obstruction. In addition, the House is well within its Constitutional rights to examine the finances of a President. As those cases are moving through the courts, the rulings are generally indicating that the House has very wide latitude in what they can look at.

      The Obstruction issue is still wide open. Calling for an end to the investigation because Mueller didn't indict is an argument that would indicate a President is absolutely above the law, which is absurd.

      If there is nothing to find, Trump should cooperate with the House. The House might "find" something where there is nothing, but that would create a PR disaster for the 2020 elections and almost certainly assure Trump a second term. Blocking everything is playing fairly well to Trump's base, but it's the independent voters who control who sits in the White House in 2021.

      Trump's apparent stance of "I refuse to allow you to investigate me" is incredibly bad optics and is only looking like the best course of action to the most hard-core of his supporters. The Constitution assigns the responsibility of oversight of the Executive branch to the House.

      Trump is right when he says that if the House is allowed to continue investigating him, then the next time there's a Dem in the White House and Repubs control the House, that they can investigate the President for any reason and impeach the President on any grounds, That's actually the way it's supposed to work.

      A strict reading of the Constitution seems to indicate that Congress has allowed the Executive branch to take on things that Congress should control. We may be witnessing Congress taking back some of their responsibilities.
      I disagree with most of your suppositions here. Mueller’s job was to recommend indictment or no indictment. He stated there wasn’t enough evidence to recommend indictment. He recommended no indictment on collusion, and made no recommendation on obstruction.

      If they investigate and then say we can’t indict, that’s pretty close to exoneration.

      As to the financial matters, they are using the argument that it is research, but haven’t named a potential crime...at least not in the first court case.
      Livin the dream

      Comment


      • Originally posted by wufan View Post

        I disagree with most of your suppositions here. Mueller’s job was to recommend indictment or no indictment. He stated there wasn’t enough evidence to recommend indictment. He recommended no indictment on collusion, and made no recommendation on obstruction.
        Mueller's job was not to recommend indictment or no indictment. That is just false.

        Mueller believed he was constrained by DOJ policies regarding indictments. Read the appointment letter. His job was to "conduct the investigation." If it was necessary and appropriate, he was "authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters." Pursuant to DOJ policy, that could not have meant Trump. His job was to investigate and to actually indict when appropriate. It was not to recommend indictment or not indictment when it came to Trump.

        It is also not accurate to say that he "recommended no indictment" because that was not part of his job. Mueller said he did not find collusion. Now, logically speaking, if he were allowed to indict or if he were allowed to recommend indictment, that would certainly fall on the side of not indicting. He did not recommend or not recommend indictment because he couldn't. In regards to obstruction, he said he could not even state what his finding or recommendation was.

        Originally posted by wufan View Post
        If they investigate and then say we can’t indict, that’s pretty close to exoneration.
        How? If Mueller said "I cannot indict the president by way of DOJ policy," how on earth is that exoneration? I just don't understand this line of thinking, and every Trump supporter is thinking this way. Mueller is a DOJ guy. If Trump shot a dude on Pennsylvania Avenue, Mueller would not believe the DOJ could indict Trump while in office, barring some additional authority granted by Congress.

        I just don't understand the hoops that people are jumping through to say Trump investigations shouldn't continue. Republicans have historically wanted the smallest government possible. You would think that means Republicans would be all for government accountability. The investigation resulted in dozens of indictments, including new information that continues to come out. Yesterday, it just came out that a Trump adviser was indicted for approving $16 million in loans to Manafort in exchange for help in getting a government role in the Trump White House.

        And as a side note, I think it's probably a good policy that the sitting president cannot be indicted, but it means that we have to be willing to use our impeachment mechanisms. And it means that we have to have a special counsel statutes. The one that was in place during Clinton's administration probably wasn't perfect, but it certainly resolved some of the ambiguity that was present this time around because Mueller was a DOJ employee.

        Comment


        • shockfan89_
          shockfan89_ commented
          Editing a comment
          Just to cut to the chase, do you think Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice in the collusion investigation?

          There is nothing more to investigate. That was the job of the special prosecutor (you just confirmed this in your post above). The House now has a choice to impeach or not to impeach, not reinvestigate.

        • jdshock
          jdshock commented
          Editing a comment
          shockfan89_ - I absolutely believe there was sufficient evidence in the report to justify starting an impeachment hearing.

          It's somewhat disingenuous to say across the board that there is "nothing more to investigate." The hearing itself would continue to be an investigation. But yes, I think there is sufficient evidence to start the hearing.

          Whether that should or should not happen is a political question. I believe in a perfect world we would impeach simply because there are no other mechanisms available to the Congress. When something illegal and of this nature has occurred, there should be an impeachment process. I am almost certain that in our current political climate, an impeachment hearing would be worse for democrats because of how fanatical Trump supporters are and just how far removed our constitutional framework for governance is from what people actually believe should occur in our government. I think I may be so idealistic about certain aspects of our constitution that I don't really care that it's worse for democrats.

          So... I don't know if he "should." I think in a perfect world, he would.

        • shockfan89_
          shockfan89_ commented
          Editing a comment
          jdshock - Democrats in the House want to continue with a blanket investigation of Trump. There is no basis for any financial records or tax returns. What crime are they investigating? The only possible crime is obstruction of justice and they have all the evidence they need if they want to move forward with impeachment.

          I think we should wait for the IG report before doing ANY more investigating. Mueller proved there was no collusion with Russia, which was the entire reason for this investigation in the first place. There has been enough shady behavior by those attempting to manufacture a crime committed by Trump that I think Democrats need to take their own advice now. Democrats kept saying if Trump didn't collude with Russia, the Mueller report will show that. The Mueller report showed that Trump did not collude with Russia. Now let's wait for the IG report to see how many crimes were committed in order to start the collusion investigation before we start banging the drum of obstruction.

          To me it makes a HUGE difference whether or not this investigation was politically motivated to begin with. I think we all now know it was.

      • As a somewhat unrelated thought, I'd be interested in hearing if people here think Clinton was rightfully impeached? So... as a thought experiment:
        • Do you think the Whitewater investigation was politically motivated generally?
        • Do you think Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying to a grand jury?
        • Do you think Clinton was rightfully impeached for obstruction of justice?
          • if yes, does it bother you that the obstruction claim was outside the initial territory of the investigation?
        I'll start:

        1. Yes;
        2. Yes;
        3. Yes;
        3a. Yes.

        And I'll add that I think in today's climate he would almost certainly be impeached simply because we view sexual harassment in the workplace differently than we did in the 90's.

        Comment


        • The House can investigate ANYTHING they want to investigate. If that doesn't suit your desires, then we need a Constitutional Convention to change that. The House does not need a legislative purpose or even any reasonable expectation of finding criminal or even unethical activity. The House is allowed to investigate to determine if there is a need for legislation. That means the House is authorized to investigate things that are 100% legal and then determine if those legal things require even a consideration of legislation.

          In today's political climate party takes precedence over country because the political party has such extensive control over re-election. When one party has control of the House and the other party has the White House, the guy in the White House better be squeaky clean or the House is going to go after him.

          I generally avoid this forum because it is a rock-solid right wing conservative discussion group, with one or two left-leaning posters. I'm about as close to an independent voter as you're going to find here. I'm the type of voter Trump has to get votes from. The bar was set pretty low when Trump was running against Hillary. It's going to be higher in 2020.

          At this point in time, it's probably better to let the voters decide in 2020 whether the President should be removed from office. An impeachment could literally last that long with Trump's tendency to go to court and appeal if he loses.

          Democrats want the Congressional investigations to go forward, many want impeachment. Republicans want the investigations to stop and let Washington get back to the business of running the country. Those of us who don't care for either party look at the obstacles Trump is throwing up to slow or halt the investigations and it makes him look like he's got something to hide. If he wants to win re-election, that's not going to work out well for him. Trump's "I'm the victim here" schtick plays well to his supporters. It really looks pretty whiny to those who are not solidly behind him.

          Per Gallup polling, at the time of the 2018 elections, voters considered themselves: Republican - 28%, Independent - 39%, Democrat - 31%. The Dems have taken some hits since they won the House. As of April, 2019, it's Republicans - 27%, Independent - 44%, Democrats - 26%.

          Both parties are gambling that their current tactics will sway that 44% that doesn't care for either party. The House has the AUTHORITY to pursue any investigation they wish to pursue regardless of its purpose or intent. The political stakes are whether the voters will be more upset with the ongoing investigations or whether they will be more upset with the efforts to thwart those investigations.

          The Dems pitched a fit when the Senate refused to consider Obama's appointment for a vacant Supreme Court seat. The Repubs pitch a fit when the House wants to investigate Trump. Welcome to politics 2019. The system is incredibly broken.
          The future's so bright - I gotta wear shades.
          We like to cut down nets and get sized for championship rings.

          Comment


          • shockfan89_
            shockfan89_ commented
            Editing a comment
            My question is how do you fix it? The Dems continue to move farther to the left and the Republicans continue to move farther to the right. The recent state abortion rulings is a great example of this, as well as the immigration debate. Dems said they were for DACA, Trump offers citizenship to DACA in exchange for building the wall (which Dems supported under Obama), Dems turn down the offer (which wouldn't have passed anyway because some Republicans would not have supported it even though Republicans claim they want stricter immigration laws).

            I will even admit it impacts me. I defend Trump more now than I ever would have before the election. I didn't even vote for Trump in the primary, but the more baseless attacks and corrupt investigations and lies from the media, the more I defend him to the point I am at now, where after the Kavanaugh hearings and Trump collusion lies from the media, I will vote for Trump no matter what in 2020, regardless of who runs against him.

            I really don't see how our country can exist much longer with this division. It is no longer about what is best for the country, it is about what is best for the party. Even the slogan Make America Great Again is divisive. How can any American find that slogan offensive? You can argue at what point it was the greatest, but how can making your country great be a negative thing? That should be the goal of every citizen in every country!

          • Dark Lord
            Dark Lord commented
            Editing a comment
            The Democrats do keep moving farther left, but the Republican party also continues to move left with few exceptions. They just do not move as far or as fast to the left. Both parties have truly lost their way and sold their souls to try and gain power and have abandoned what used to truly make them parties worth considering. Most followers of either party are blind loyalists that do not truly care about what should or should not be the role of government and only care about defeating the other side. There are still some decent people left in both parties, but the leadership of both are all about more government power and spending. They just disagree on what parts of your lives they want to control more.

        • I, along with Trump are praying to God every night that these deranged bastards start impeachment proceedings. Don will be able to donate his entire reelection war chest to the disabled veterans.

          You've got one of the most thorough and partisan investigations in the history of the planet exonerating a somewhat shady real estate developer of any crime (Yes, Mueller would have stated that Trump obstructed justice if it had happened). The reality is, Trump was just trolling - kinda interfering publicly without any use of executive powers - because he knew all along he was innocent. He sensationalized the witch hunt to solidify his base and keep the Dims distracted while loading up the courts, dancing with China and N.K, and a bunch of other stuff - all the while he's been holding this FISA-Gate nuclear bomb in his back pocket if he ever needed to tip the scales. Now that the REAL investigation is over and he's clean as a whistle, he's going to dump the FISA stuff onto some friendly investigators (already happening) and the Dims are going to see NYC commercial real estate skulduggery up close and personal. It's already check-mate and they don't even know it.

          It's like men against babies...


          T


          ...

          Comment


          • The President can staff for an investigation just like the House can. And he's doing so...

            Comment

            Working...
            X