To impeach, or not to impeach: there may be an alternative

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Apr 20, 2019.

  1. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because Trump knows it won’t actually work at least full removal and it will energize his supporters.
     
  2. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So your saying you acknowledge what I’m saying when you say “some are laws..... but that’s secondary”

    Again I’m not saying Mueller could indict him if you look through the OLC lenses only that it didn’t prohibit him from taking a more firm stance.

    One also wonders why wasn’t Kushner or Don Jr indicted?
     
  3. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From page 258
    .
    For these reasons we believe that the Constitution requires recognition of a presidential immunity from indictment and criminal prosecution while the President is in office.

    Did Don Jr. & the Kush do something to be indicted for?
     
  4. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    “We believe” again suggests that there isn’t concrete laws pertaining to this situation so what would stop him from taking a more firm stance if he believed it?


    Recommending prosecution to congress and actual prosecution are different things.

    I thought you all thought Don Jr tower meeting was collusion?
     
  5. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You seemed to think the meeting was illegal so why wasn’t Junior indicted? Is he a sitting president too?

     
  6. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Responded.
     
  7. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First:
    upload_2019-4-23_19-17-51.png
    Second: I think they determined Jr. was to dumb to conspire with the Russians.
     
  8. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wait does that actually make sense to you that he was too dumb?
     
  9. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What rule did have I infringed? What's the matter with you?
     
  10. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reading.... not your strong suite.
     
  11. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed
     
  12. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmmmmmmm

     
  13. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Answering questions isn’t yours......
     
  14. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The same one you accused me of when you linked to a blog and didn’t explain your position
     
  15. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You actually might want to read up on the bold things , and finish reading the report . Wow
     
  16. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm trying to be kind.
    Does this sound smart to you?

    A timeline of the shifting stories on the meeting:

    • July 24, 2016: Donald Trump Jr. appears on CNN and dismisses the notion that the hacking of the DNC's emails was part of a Russian plot to help his father in the election: "Well, it just goes to show you their exact moral compass. I mean, they will say anything to be able to win this. I mean, this is time and time again, lie after lie."
    • July 8, 2017: The New York Times breaks the news about the meeting. Trump Jr. issues a statement saying it was a "short introductory meeting" that was primarily about Russian adoptions.
    • July 9, 2017: The Times publishes a second story reporting that Trump Jr. was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton in advance of the meeting. He issues a second statement saying the Russian lawyer offered "vague, ambiguous" claims of dirt on Clinton, but that nothing meaningful came from the meeting.
    • July 11, 2017: To get ahead of a Times article that would be published minutes later, Trump Jr. tweets screenshots of the email exchange in which the meeting was organized. The emails indicate an interest in obtaining incriminating information and a tacit acknowledgement by Trump Jr. of the Russian government's support for his father.
    • July 12-16, 2017: President Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow appears on several cable news shows and denies that the president had any involvement in drafting his son's initial statement to the Times.
    • June 2, 2018: The Times publishes a letter from Trump's lawyers to Robert Mueller conceding that the president dictated "a short but accurate" statement issued by his son about the meeting.
    • July 26, 2018: Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen claims the president approved "going ahead" with the meeting, contradicting denials of any prior knowledge by Trump's legal team.
    • Aug. 5, 2018: Trump again denies having any advanced knowledge, but claims that it was a "totally legal" meeting to "get information on an opponent" — something that is "done all the time in politics"
     
  17. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just read the report...go ahead impeach. Oh even your speaker says that’s not right
     
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In 1998, Ken Starr served a subpoena to President Clinton forcing him to testify. When he was served, Clinton agreed to testify voluntarily. But the subpoena was served.

    Nothing happened to the GOP "because' of that. They took over the House and the Senate, and won the 2000 elections. they lost in 1996 because Clinton had built a strong economy and was very popular for it. Not because he was impeached.
     
  19. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What happened to ignorance not being an excuse??

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/ignorance-of-law/
     
  20. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If that's what you're saying, then I guess so.

    Because you look through the OLC lens, plus laws, plus precedent, plus SCOTUS decisions, plus.... many many things.. I always feel like right-wingers always try to see things as exclusively black or white. It would be very comfortable if that were possible. Would spare quite a bit of mental effort. Alas.. it doesn't work that way.

    It's on the report. But some of it might be in the redacted portions.
     
  21. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    upload_2019-4-23_19-37-22.png

    Did you re-read the OLC rules yet?
     
  22. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That pertains to Don Jr in what way?
     
  23. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All of what you speak pertains actually indicting him which is not what I’m talking about
     
  24. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This series of events [surrounding the June 9 meeting] could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals . . . Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide “official documents and information” to the Trump campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of e-mail chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.

    The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a
    conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban . . . solicitation of an illegal foreign-source contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of “an express or implied promise to make a [foreign-source] contribution” . . . There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a “thing of value” within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted “willfully,” i.e. with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...irms-don-jr-too-stupid-to-collude-with-russia

    Yep. To stupid.
     
  25. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pertains to you.
    Ya that’s not OLC guidelines
     

Share This Page