Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 188: Two for Tuesday

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10
Corrik 08/22/18 8:34:26 PM #101:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... Benefit of the doubt in regards to what? Trump, essentially I think he is hella guilty on probably a ton of financial related things over his career. I highly doubt anything regarding collusion he has committed a crime with. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907375123] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> Benefit of the doubt in regards to what? </quote> Trump, essentially</quote> I think he is hella guilty on probably a ton of financial related things over his career. I highly doubt anything regarding collusion he has committed a crime with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LapisLazuli 08/22/18 8:35:02 PM #102:	I don't know why you guys keep pushing this with him knowing absolutely nothing will ever change or be admitted to. When it comes to arguments he's basically a machine with preprogrammed answers. --- https://i.imgur.com/WuDQzsc_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium <cite>LapisLazuli posted [p:907375163] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>I don't know why you guys keep pushing this with him knowing absolutely nothing will ever change or be admitted to. When it comes to arguments he's basically a machine with preprogrammed answers.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StealThisSheen 08/22/18 8:35:53 PM #103:	Corrik posted... xp1337 posted... Corrik posted... You still have some evidence of corruption there regardless. Potential evidence was destroyed. At what point did it become potential evidence though? Even if you wanted to make this stretch, wouldn't you have to establish that she deleted these with the knowledge that they'd be wanted later? If someone deleted a post on GameFAQs, and then a year later someone was doing a comically over-the-top background investigation of them. Would their deleting a post now retroactively become evidence of corruption? I mean, hell, maybe it was damning? Or maybe it was just someone posting in the wrong topic? There's no way to know now! (assume for the purpose of this hypothetical we're back in the days where deleting a post kept the poster's name on the post) If someone did it in a way that was not normal with the intent to make it unrecoverable, then yes. You don't use a program like that unless you wish to make it unrecoverable. And that is not a normal way of going about things. Trump pardoning Manafort immediately wouldn't be normal, either, yet you insisted that wasn't evidence of anything Hmm thinkingfaceemoji --- Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! <cite>StealThisSheen posted [p:907375202] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>You still have some evidence of corruption there regardless. Potential evidence was destroyed.</quote> At what point did it become potential evidence though? Even if you wanted to make this stretch, wouldn't you have to establish that she deleted these with the knowledge that they'd be wanted later? If someone deleted a post on GameFAQs, and then a year later someone was doing a comically over-the-top background investigation of them. Would their deleting a post now retroactively become evidence of corruption? I mean, hell, maybe it was damning? Or maybe it was just someone posting in the wrong topic? There's no way to know now! (assume for the purpose of this hypothetical we're back in the days where deleting a post kept the poster's name on the post)</quote> If someone did it in a way that was not normal with the intent to make it unrecoverable, then yes. You don't use a program like that unless you wish to make it unrecoverable. And that is not a normal way of going about things.</quote> Trump pardoning Manafort immediately wouldn't be normal, either, yet you insisted that wasn't evidence of anything Hmm thinkingfaceemoji</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 08/22/18 8:35:59 PM #104:	LapisLazuli posted... I don't know why you guys keep pushing this with him knowing absolutely nothing will ever change or be admitted to. When it comes to arguments he's basically a machine with preprogrammed answers. From the dude who just made up words I said to make an argument and when got called out on it went to ad hominem. Okay. Anyways --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907375210] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>LapisLazuli posted...</cite> <quote>I don't know why you guys keep pushing this with him knowing absolutely nothing will ever change or be admitted to. When it comes to arguments he's basically a machine with preprogrammed answers.</quote> From the dude who just made up words I said to make an argument and when got called out on it went to ad hominem. Okay. Anyways</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 08/22/18 8:37:50 PM #105:	StealThisSheen posted... Corrik posted... xp1337 posted... Corrik posted... You still have some evidence of corruption there regardless. Potential evidence was destroyed. At what point did it become potential evidence though? Even if you wanted to make this stretch, wouldn't you have to establish that she deleted these with the knowledge that they'd be wanted later? If someone deleted a post on GameFAQs, and then a year later someone was doing a comically over-the-top background investigation of them. Would their deleting a post now retroactively become evidence of corruption? I mean, hell, maybe it was damning? Or maybe it was just someone posting in the wrong topic? There's no way to know now! (assume for the purpose of this hypothetical we're back in the days where deleting a post kept the poster's name on the post) If someone did it in a way that was not normal with the intent to make it unrecoverable, then yes. You don't use a program like that unless you wish to make it unrecoverable. And that is not a normal way of going about things. Trump pardoning Manafort immediately wouldn't be normal, either, yet you insisted that wasn't evidence of anything Hmm thinkingfaceemoji I said it wasn't grounds for impeachment I believe. Pardons are all corrupt. I have said this many times before. Pardons circumvent the law and shouldn't exist. I believe the pardon as evidence of a crime though was discussed, and I said it was basically just potential evidence and it could be explained elsewise. And said it was only proof when it gives you the answer you want. Thus it wasn't proof of a crime or grounds for impeachment. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907375326] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>You still have some evidence of corruption there regardless. Potential evidence was destroyed.</quote> At what point did it become potential evidence though? Even if you wanted to make this stretch, wouldn't you have to establish that she deleted these with the knowledge that they'd be wanted later? If someone deleted a post on GameFAQs, and then a year later someone was doing a comically over-the-top background investigation of them. Would their deleting a post now retroactively become evidence of corruption? I mean, hell, maybe it was damning? Or maybe it was just someone posting in the wrong topic? There's no way to know now! (assume for the purpose of this hypothetical we're back in the days where deleting a post kept the poster's name on the post)</quote> If someone did it in a way that was not normal with the intent to make it unrecoverable, then yes. You don't use a program like that unless you wish to make it unrecoverable. And that is not a normal way of going about things.</quote> Trump pardoning Manafort immediately wouldn't be normal, either, yet you insisted that wasn't evidence of anything Hmm thinkingfaceemoji</quote> I said it wasn't grounds for impeachment I believe. Pardons are all corrupt. I have said this many times before. Pardons circumvent the law and shouldn't exist. I believe the pardon as evidence of a crime though was discussed, and I said it was basically just potential evidence and it could be explained elsewise. And said it was only proof when it gives you the answer you want. Thus it wasn't proof of a crime or grounds for impeachment.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 08/22/18 8:38:26 PM #106:	Corrik posted... I think he is hella guilty on probably a ton of financial related things over his career. Do you think he should be tried and potentially improsoned for those things if found guilty? --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:907375357] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> I think he is hella guilty on probably a ton of financial related things over his career. </quote> Do you think he should be tried and potentially improsoned for those things if found guilty?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 08/22/18 8:40:07 PM #107:	Corrik posted... Then yes, you potentially destroyed evidence and at least there is some evidence of corruption. again, there is not "some evidence of corruption" when there is no evidence. by your logic, there's "at least some evidence of" EVERYONE being a criminal. you might as well say "lasa potentially stole an apple (but we have 0% evidence of this happening), so there's at least some evidence of him being a criminal." how the actual fuck does this make sense? --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:907375452] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>Then yes, you potentially destroyed evidence and at least there is some evidence of corruption.</quote> again, there is not "some evidence of corruption" when there is no evidence. by your logic, there's "at least some evidence of" EVERYONE being a criminal. you might as well say "lasa potentially stole an apple (but we have 0% evidence of this happening), so there's at least some evidence of him being a criminal." how the actual fuck does this make sense?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 08/22/18 8:40:07 PM #108:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... I think he is hella guilty on probably a ton of financial related things over his career. Do you think he should be tried and potentially improsoned for those things if found guilty? Absolutely if they are within statutes and within the law to try. Why would he be above the law? --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907375454] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> I think he is hella guilty on probably a ton of financial related things over his career. </quote> Do you think he should be tried and potentially improsoned for those things if found guilty?</quote> Absolutely if they are within statutes and within the law to try. Why would he be above the law?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 8:41:34 PM #109:	Corrik posted... And that is not a normal way of going about things. Again, I sent out a bat signal to the IT people in the topic, but I think you're just wrong here - from a security standpoint. Deleting stuff as it typically is to a lay-person - deleting it from GMail or deleting stuff from the Recycle Bin on Windows - may be sufficient for their purposes but it doesn't truly delete it. It simply informs the OS that that memory is free to be used for whatever. The data is still there just generally inaccessible to the normal user. It's how recovery programs can work. Unless that memory is overwritten by something else, the data is still sitting there. Clinton, who is a high-profile government individual, can reasonably expect that she might find herself the target of malicious actors looking to compromise her/hack her/whatever. Therefore, if she wants to delete something, it's not necessarily smart for her to assume she can just leave things off where a "normal" person would. I'd actually be kind of appalled if government IT protocol wasn't taking these extra steps to delete things. All this leaving aside that wasn't most, if not all, of this done by IT workers for her? By your logic isn't it possible she just said "Yo, guys, delete this stuff for me, I need more room on my computer" and the IT guys went about it the way I described for the reasons I did? Or hell, does it even matter? After all, she could have just told them to delete stuff and didn't realize the level they'd go to. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907375519] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> And that is not a normal way of going about things.</quote> Again, I sent out a bat signal to the IT people in the topic, but I think you're just wrong here - from a security standpoint. Deleting stuff as it typically is to a lay-person - deleting it from GMail or deleting stuff from the Recycle Bin on Windows - may be sufficient for their purposes but it doesn't truly delete it. It simply informs the OS that that memory is free to be used for whatever. The data is still there just generally inaccessible to the normal user. It's how recovery programs can work. Unless that memory is overwritten by something else, the data is still sitting there. Clinton, who is a high-profile government individual, can reasonably expect that she might find herself the target of malicious actors looking to compromise her/hack her/whatever. Therefore, if she wants to delete something, it's not necessarily smart for her to assume she can just leave things off where a "normal" person would. I'd actually be kind of appalled if government IT protocol wasn't taking these extra steps to delete things. All this leaving aside that wasn't most, if not all, of this done by IT workers for her? By your logic isn't it possible she just said "Yo, guys, delete this stuff for me, I need more room on my computer" and the IT guys went about it the way I described for the reasons I did? Or hell, does it even matter? After all, she could have just told them to delete stuff and didn't realize the level they'd go to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 08/22/18 8:41:55 PM #110:	Mr Lasastryke posted... Corrik posted... Then yes, you potentially destroyed evidence and at least there is some evidence of corruption. again, there is not "some evidence of corruption" when there is no evidence. by your logic, there's "at least some evidence of" EVERYONE being a criminal. you might as well say "lasa potentially stole an apple (but we have 0% evidence of this happening), so there's at least some evidence of him being a criminal." how the actual fuck does this make sense? If Lasa was a shop owner and he deleted his security tape every 30 days, but he shoots a "robber" and the police come to see the security tape to verify the store but lasa deleted the tape after only 7 days in that time period. There is potential evidence removed in a non normal way and is at least some evidence of corrupt behavior yes. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907375533] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mr Lasastryke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>Then yes, you potentially destroyed evidence and at least there is some evidence of corruption.</quote> again, there is not "some evidence of corruption" when there is no evidence. by your logic, there's "at least some evidence of" EVERYONE being a criminal. you might as well say "lasa potentially stole an apple (but we have 0% evidence of this happening), so there's at least some evidence of him being a criminal." how the actual fuck does this make sense?</quote> If Lasa was a shop owner and he deleted his security tape every 30 days, but he shoots a "robber" and the police come to see the security tape to verify the store but lasa deleted the tape after only 7 days in that time period. There is potential evidence removed in a non normal way and is at least some evidence of corrupt behavior yes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 08/22/18 8:42:46 PM #111:	Corrik posted... Mr Lasastryke posted... Corrik posted... Then yes, you potentially destroyed evidence and at least there is some evidence of corruption. again, there is not "some evidence of corruption" when there is no evidence. by your logic, there's "at least some evidence of" EVERYONE being a criminal. you might as well say "lasa potentially stole an apple (but we have 0% evidence of this happening), so there's at least some evidence of him being a criminal." how the actual fuck does this make sense? If Lasa was a shop owner and he deleted his security tape every 30 days, but he shoots a "robber" and the police come to see the security tape to verify the store but lasa deleted the tape after only 7 days in that time period. There is potential evidence removed in a non normal way and is at least some evidence of corrupt behavior yes. Good thing the emails were deleted after the proper amount of time passed, then --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:907375580] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mr Lasastryke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>Then yes, you potentially destroyed evidence and at least there is some evidence of corruption.</quote> again, there is not "some evidence of corruption" when there is no evidence. by your logic, there's "at least some evidence of" EVERYONE being a criminal. you might as well say "lasa potentially stole an apple (but we have 0% evidence of this happening), so there's at least some evidence of him being a criminal." how the actual fuck does this make sense?</quote> If Lasa was a shop owner and he deleted his security tape every 30 days, but he shoots a "robber" and the police come to see the security tape to verify the store but lasa deleted the tape after only 7 days in that time period. There is potential evidence removed in a non normal way and is at least some evidence of corrupt behavior yes.</quote> Good thing the emails were deleted after the proper amount of time passed, then </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 08/22/18 8:45:02 PM #112:	xp1337 posted... Corrik posted... And that is not a normal way of going about things. Again, I sent out a bat signal to the IT people in the topic, but I think you're just wrong here - from a security standpoint. Deleting stuff as it typically is to a lay-person - deleting it from GMail or deleting stuff from the Recycle Bin on Windows - may be sufficient for their purposes but it doesn't truly delete it. It simply informs the OS that that memory is free to be used for whatever. The data is still there just generally inaccessible to the normal user. It's how recovery programs can work. Unless that memory is overwritten by something else, the data is still sitting there. Clinton, who is a high-profile government individual, can reasonably expect that she might find herself the target of malicious actors looking to compromise her/hack her/whatever. Therefore, if she wants to delete something, it's not necessarily smart for her to assume she can just leave things off where a "normal" person would. I'd actually be kind of appalled if government IT protocol wasn't taking these extra steps to delete things. All this leaving aside that wasn't most, if not all, of this done by IT workers for her? By your logic isn't it possible she just said "Yo, guys, delete this stuff for me, I need more room on my computer" and the IT guys went about it the way I described for the reasons I did? Or hell, does it even matter? After all, she could have just told them to delete stuff and didn't realize the level they'd go to. I do not think she has had a track record of using that way with her emails prior and it was only done upon the investigation. (Whether she did it or not so she says). The fact it was 33000 seems to suggest there was a long ass time period where supposedly crucial content which malicious people could get was not deemed worthy of being deleted this way. And, what would be on there that a malicious person would want... Maybe... Classified materials? I mean, it is potential evidence. It is gone. It was removed in a way to be unrecoverable. That is at least some evidence of corruption. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907375716] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> And that is not a normal way of going about things.</quote> Again, I sent out a bat signal to the IT people in the topic, but I think you're just wrong here - from a security standpoint. Deleting stuff as it typically is to a lay-person - deleting it from GMail or deleting stuff from the Recycle Bin on Windows - may be sufficient for their purposes but it doesn't truly delete it. It simply informs the OS that that memory is free to be used for whatever. The data is still there just generally inaccessible to the normal user. It's how recovery programs can work. Unless that memory is overwritten by something else, the data is still sitting there. Clinton, who is a high-profile government individual, can reasonably expect that she might find herself the target of malicious actors looking to compromise her/hack her/whatever. Therefore, if she wants to delete something, it's not necessarily smart for her to assume she can just leave things off where a "normal" person would. I'd actually be kind of appalled if government IT protocol wasn't taking these extra steps to delete things. All this leaving aside that wasn't most, if not all, of this done by IT workers for her? By your logic isn't it possible she just said "Yo, guys, delete this stuff for me, I need more room on my computer" and the IT guys went about it the way I described for the reasons I did? Or hell, does it even matter? After all, she could have just told them to delete stuff and didn't realize the level they'd go to.</quote> I do not think she has had a track record of using that way with her emails prior and it was only done upon the investigation. (Whether she did it or not so she says). The fact it was 33000 seems to suggest there was a long ass time period where supposedly crucial content which malicious people could get was not deemed worthy of being deleted this way. And, what would be on there that a malicious person would want... Maybe... Classified materials? I mean, it is potential evidence. It is gone. It was removed in a way to be unrecoverable. That is at least some evidence of corruption.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 8:46:14 PM #113:	Corrik posted... I said it wasn't grounds for impeachment I believe. Do you think the Saturday Night Massacre was grounds for impeachment of Nixon? After all, he certainly had the power to fire everyone he did. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907375787] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>I said it wasn't grounds for impeachment I believe. </quote> Do you think the Saturday Night Massacre was grounds for impeachment of Nixon? After all, he certainly had the power to fire everyone he did.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 08/22/18 8:47:25 PM #114:	xp1337 posted... Corrik posted... I said it wasn't grounds for impeachment I believe. Do you think the Saturday Night Massacre was grounds for impeachment of Nixon? After all, he certainly had the power to fire everyone he did. I would have to read about it more to know what went down with it. If Trump fires Mueller, I think it is grounds. If that relates at all. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907375856] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>I said it wasn't grounds for impeachment I believe. </quote> Do you think the Saturday Night Massacre was grounds for impeachment of Nixon? After all, he certainly had the power to fire everyone he did.</quote> I would have to read about it more to know what went down with it. If Trump fires Mueller, I think it is grounds. If that relates at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 8:51:30 PM #115:	Corrik posted... That is at least some evidence of corruption. No it isn't! Look, at the very most - I could understand if you felt it was potential evidence of corruption. In the sense that you can potentially attribute anything to the unknown. At which point it comes off as nothing more than a smear campaign because you've chosen to focus on that possibility. Why not say it's evidence that there's alien life. Could have been what she deleted. Why not say it's evidence she's a philanthropist? Maybe she deleted records of donations to charity she made anonymously? --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907376066] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>That is at least some evidence of corruption.</quote> No it isn't! Look, at the very most - I could understand if you felt it was potential evidence of corruption. In the sense that you can potentially attribute anything to the unknown. At which point it comes off as nothing more than a smear campaign because you've chosen to focus on that possibility. Why not say it's evidence that there's alien life. Could have been what she deleted. Why not say it's evidence she's a philanthropist? Maybe she deleted records of donations to charity she made anonymously?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 08/22/18 8:52:10 PM #116:	Corrik posted... If Lasa was a shop owner and he deleted his security tape every 30 days, but he shoots a "robber" and the police come to see the security tape to verify the store but lasa deleted the tape after only 7 days in that time period. There is potential evidence removed in a non normal way and is at least some evidence of corrupt behavior yes. comparing security footage to e-mails is pretty disingenuous as it's much more clear what the content of security footage is. like you pointed out, those e-mails might as well have contained cooking recipes. a better analogy would be if i destroyed hundreds of DVDs and it's completely unknown what the content on them was or something. --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:907376097] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>If Lasa was a shop owner and he deleted his security tape every 30 days, but he shoots a "robber" and the police come to see the security tape to verify the store but lasa deleted the tape after only 7 days in that time period. There is potential evidence removed in a non normal way and is at least some evidence of corrupt behavior yes.</quote> comparing security footage to e-mails is pretty disingenuous as it's much more clear what the content of security footage is. like you pointed out, those e-mails might as well have contained cooking recipes. a better analogy would be if i destroyed hundreds of DVDs and it's completely unknown what the content on them was or something.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog 08/22/18 8:53:38 PM #117:	Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP. --- ~Peaf~ <cite>Peace___Frog posted [p:907376197] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 8:58:22 PM #118:	Corrik posted... xp1337 posted... Corrik posted... I said it wasn't grounds for impeachment I believe. Do you think the Saturday Night Massacre was grounds for impeachment of Nixon? After all, he certainly had the power to fire everyone he did. I would have to read about it more to know what went down with it. If Trump fires Mueller, I think it is grounds. If that relates at all. Archibald Cox was the special prosecutor investigating Watergate. Nixon ordered his AG to fire him. AG refused and resigned. He then ordered the Deputy AG to do so. He refused and resigned (though initially they claimed they fired him). Finally, the Solicitor General - Bork, from SCOTUS confirmation fame - fired Cox. It was basically the beginning of the end of the Nixon Administration. It's when a plurality of the public supported impeachment. The equivalent here would be if Trump ordered Rosenstein to fire Mueller and Rosenstein refused and resigned/got fired and he went down the DOJ line until he found someone who would fire Mueller. History aside, I'm curious why you think this would count as grounds for impeachment but pardoning Manafort wouldn't? Trump has the power to do both. I apologize if you elaborated on this earlier, but what? Do you think pardoning Manafort wouldn't count as an attempt to obstruct the Mueller investigation by basically immunizing and tampering with a potential witness against him? --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907376460] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>I said it wasn't grounds for impeachment I believe. </quote> Do you think the Saturday Night Massacre was grounds for impeachment of Nixon? After all, he certainly had the power to fire everyone he did.</quote> I would have to read about it more to know what went down with it. If Trump fires Mueller, I think it is grounds. If that relates at all.</quote> Archibald Cox was the special prosecutor investigating Watergate. Nixon ordered his AG to fire him. AG refused and resigned. He then ordered the Deputy AG to do so. He refused and resigned (though initially they claimed they fired him). Finally, the Solicitor General - Bork, from SCOTUS confirmation fame - fired Cox. It was basically the beginning of the end of the Nixon Administration. It's when a plurality of the public supported impeachment. The equivalent here would be if Trump ordered Rosenstein to fire Mueller and Rosenstein refused and resigned/got fired and he went down the DOJ line until he found someone who would fire Mueller. History aside, I'm curious why you think this would count as grounds for impeachment but pardoning Manafort wouldn't? Trump has the power to do both. I apologize if you elaborated on this earlier, but what? Do you think pardoning Manafort wouldn't count as an attempt to obstruct the Mueller investigation by basically immunizing and tampering with a potential witness against him?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LapisLazuli 08/22/18 8:58:26 PM #119:	I often forget Pence is even alive. At least Biden was on Parks and Rec. --- https://i.imgur.com/WuDQzsc_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium <cite>LapisLazuli posted [p:907376464] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>I often forget Pence is even alive. At least Biden was on Parks and Rec.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Reg 08/22/18 8:58:57 PM #120:	Peace___Frog posted... Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP. Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP --- Congratulations to BKSheikah, winner of the BYIG Guru Contest <cite>Reg posted [p:907376502] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Peace___Frog posted...</cite> <quote>Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP.</quote> Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog 08/22/18 9:00:18 PM #121:	Reg posted... Peace___Frog posted... Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP. Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP Oh. Damn, that's intense. Wonder if he's shaking in his boots like Trump is. --- ~Peaf~ <cite>Peace___Frog posted [p:907376585] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Reg posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Peace___Frog posted...</cite> <quote>Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP.</quote> Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP</quote> Oh. Damn, that's intense. Wonder if he's shaking in his boots like Trump is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 9:00:29 PM #122:	Reg posted... Peace___Frog posted... Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP. Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP He literally invented a travel delay to keep Trump in the same place as Pence during the Veepstakes! --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907376592] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Reg posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Peace___Frog posted...</cite> <quote>Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP.</quote> Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP</quote> He literally invented a travel delay to keep Trump in the same place as Pence during the Veepstakes!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 08/22/18 9:00:31 PM #123:	xp1337 posted... Corrik posted... xp1337 posted... Corrik posted... I said it wasn't grounds for impeachment I believe. Do you think the Saturday Night Massacre was grounds for impeachment of Nixon? After all, he certainly had the power to fire everyone he did. I would have to read about it more to know what went down with it. If Trump fires Mueller, I think it is grounds. If that relates at all. Archibald Cox was the special prosecutor investigating Watergate. Nixon ordered his AG to fire him. AG refused and resigned. He then ordered the Deputy AG to do so. He refused and resigned (though initially they claimed they fired him). Finally, the Solicitor General - Bork, from SCOTUS confirmation fame - fired Cox. It was basically the beginning of the end of the Nixon Administration. It's when a plurality of the public supported impeachment. The equivalent here would be if Trump ordered Rosenstein to fire Mueller and Rosenstein refused and resigned/got fired and he went down the DOJ line until he found someone who would fire Mueller. History aside, I'm curious why you think this would count as grounds for impeachment but pardoning Manafort wouldn't? Trump has the power to do both. I apologize if you elaborated on this earlier, but what? Do you think pardoning Manafort wouldn't count as an attempt to obstruct the Mueller investigation by basically immunizing and tampering with a potential witness against him? Firing a special prosecutor specifically given power to investigate you during said investigation seems like astronomical grounds for impeachment and would be bipartisan. If Trump fires Mueller tomorrow, you better bet your ass he is gone. Because with Manafort, there is only a potential reason why it could be obstructing and doesn't have any proof or could not even relate at all. It is why Hillary wasn't charged despite her emails being gone. It is only potential evidence. Where as in firing Mueller is clear cut obstruction of an investigation. His literal purpose is to investigate Trump. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907376594] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>I said it wasn't grounds for impeachment I believe. </quote> Do you think the Saturday Night Massacre was grounds for impeachment of Nixon? After all, he certainly had the power to fire everyone he did.</quote> I would have to read about it more to know what went down with it. If Trump fires Mueller, I think it is grounds. If that relates at all.</quote> Archibald Cox was the special prosecutor investigating Watergate. Nixon ordered his AG to fire him. AG refused and resigned. He then ordered the Deputy AG to do so. He refused and resigned (though initially they claimed they fired him). Finally, the Solicitor General - Bork, from SCOTUS confirmation fame - fired Cox. It was basically the beginning of the end of the Nixon Administration. It's when a plurality of the public supported impeachment. The equivalent here would be if Trump ordered Rosenstein to fire Mueller and Rosenstein refused and resigned/got fired and he went down the DOJ line until he found someone who would fire Mueller. History aside, I'm curious why you think this would count as grounds for impeachment but pardoning Manafort wouldn't? Trump has the power to do both. I apologize if you elaborated on this earlier, but what? Do you think pardoning Manafort wouldn't count as an attempt to obstruct the Mueller investigation by basically immunizing and tampering with a potential witness against him?</quote> Firing a special prosecutor specifically given power to investigate you during said investigation seems like astronomical grounds for impeachment and would be bipartisan. If Trump fires Mueller tomorrow, you better bet your ass he is gone. Because with Manafort, there is only a potential reason why it could be obstructing and doesn't have any proof or could not even relate at all. It is why Hillary wasn't charged despite her emails being gone. It is only potential evidence. Where as in firing Mueller is clear cut obstruction of an investigation. His literal purpose is to investigate Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NewerShadow 08/22/18 9:02:25 PM #124:	Peace___Frog posted... Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP. Pence has a NASA thing in Houston tomorrow, so hell probably end up in the news for that. --- -.. --- - ... / .- -. -.. / -.. .- ... .... . ... <cite>NewerShadow posted [p:907376696] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Peace___Frog posted...</cite> <quote>Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP.</quote> Pence has a NASA thing in Houston tomorrow, so hell probably end up in the news for that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog 08/22/18 9:04:26 PM #125:	NewerShadow posted... Peace___Frog posted... Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP. Pence has a NASA thing in Houston tomorrow, so hell probably end up in the news for that. Fingers crossed that someone can at least get him on camera saying something about this week's revelations. --- ~Peaf~ <cite>Peace___Frog posted [p:907376813] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>NewerShadow posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Peace___Frog posted...</cite> <quote>Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP.</quote> Pence has a NASA thing in Houston tomorrow, so hell probably end up in the news for that.</quote> Fingers crossed that someone can at least get him on camera saying something about this week's revelations.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 08/22/18 9:05:51 PM #126:	xp1337 posted... Reg posted... Peace___Frog posted... Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP. Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP He literally invented a travel delay to keep Trump in the same place as Pence during the Veepstakes! Would we be better off with VP Christie or VP Gingrich? I...think so? --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:907376884] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Reg posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Peace___Frog posted...</cite> <quote>Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP.</quote> Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP</quote> He literally invented a travel delay to keep Trump in the same place as Pence during the Veepstakes!</quote> Would we be better off with VP Christie or VP Gingrich? I...think so?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 08/22/18 9:07:48 PM #127:	Jakyl25 posted... xp1337 posted... Reg posted... Peace___Frog posted... Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP. Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP He literally invented a travel delay to keep Trump in the same place as Pence during the Veepstakes! Would we be better off with VP Christie or VP Gingrich? I...think so? VP Nikki Haley woulda been sweet. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907376979] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Reg posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Peace___Frog posted...</cite> <quote>Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP.</quote> Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP</quote> He literally invented a travel delay to keep Trump in the same place as Pence during the Veepstakes!</quote> Would we be better off with VP Christie or VP Gingrich? I...think so?</quote> VP Nikki Haley woulda been sweet.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Reg 08/22/18 9:08:04 PM #128:	Jakyl25 posted... xp1337 posted... Reg posted... Peace___Frog posted... Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP. Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP He literally invented a travel delay to keep Trump in the same place as Pence during the Veepstakes! Would we be better off with VP Christie or VP Gingrich? I...think so? Off the top of my head, Christie probably just on grounds of not being one of the hard religious nutters, Gingrich hell no --- Congratulations to BKSheikah, winner of the BYIG Guru Contest <cite>Reg posted [p:907376998] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Reg posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Peace___Frog posted...</cite> <quote>Change of topic because you guys are running in circles. Anyone seen or heard anything from Pence? I seem to recall Manafort being a key figure in the campaign around the time he was brought on as VP.</quote> Manafort literally was the guy that picked him for VP</quote> He literally invented a travel delay to keep Trump in the same place as Pence during the Veepstakes!</quote> Would we be better off with VP Christie or VP Gingrich? I...think so?</quote> Off the top of my head, Christie probably just on grounds of not being one of the hard religious nutters, Gingrich hell no</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 08/22/18 9:10:55 PM #129:	Yes Corrik we know you think Haley is hot --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:907377158] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>Yes Corrik we know you think Haley is hot</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 9:11:20 PM #130:	Corrik posted... Because with Manafort, there is only a potential reason why it could be obstructing and doesn't have any proof or could not even relate at all. Follow-up: What if Trump pardons himself? I know the legal question of whether he can is murky, but he has asserted he could. So let's say he does. For the purposes of the question, we'll say he claims his reasoning is to have the country move on from the "RIGGED WITCH HUNT." Also assume his pardon is like the one Ford gave Nixon and just vaguely says he's pardoned of any wrongdoing he may have done. So it's not like he's named any specific crimes and can technically claim he never did anything wrong. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907377186] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>Because with Manafort, there is only a potential reason why it could be obstructing and doesn't have any proof or could not even relate at all.</quote> Follow-up: What if Trump pardons himself? I know the legal question of whether he can is murky, but he has asserted he could. So let's say he does. For the purposes of the question, we'll say he claims his reasoning is to have the country move on from the "RIGGED WITCH HUNT." Also assume his pardon is like the one Ford gave Nixon and just vaguely says he's pardoned of any wrongdoing he may have done. So it's not like he's named any specific crimes and can technically claim he never did anything wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 08/22/18 9:16:46 PM #131:	What if a President was just like I grant a blanket pardon to everyone in America! Would that take an Amendment to undo? --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:907377511] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>What if a President was just like I grant a blanket pardon to everyone in America! Would that take an Amendment to undo?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 08/22/18 9:18:25 PM #132:	xp1337 posted... Corrik posted... Because with Manafort, there is only a potential reason why it could be obstructing and doesn't have any proof or could not even relate at all. Follow-up: What if Trump pardons himself? I know the legal question of whether he can is murky, but he has asserted he could. So let's say he does. For the purposes of the question, we'll say he claims his reasoning is to have the country move on from the "RIGGED WITCH HUNT." Also assume his pardon is like the one Ford gave Nixon and just vaguely says he's pardoned of any wrongdoing he may have done. So it's not like he's named any specific crimes and can technically claim he never did anything wrong. I have literally no idea how that would work. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907377631] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>Because with Manafort, there is only a potential reason why it could be obstructing and doesn't have any proof or could not even relate at all.</quote> Follow-up: What if Trump pardons himself? I know the legal question of whether he can is murky, but he has asserted he could. So let's say he does. For the purposes of the question, we'll say he claims his reasoning is to have the country move on from the "RIGGED WITCH HUNT." Also assume his pardon is like the one Ford gave Nixon and just vaguely says he's pardoned of any wrongdoing he may have done. So it's not like he's named any specific crimes and can technically claim he never did anything wrong.</quote> I have literally no idea how that would work.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 9:20:18 PM #133:	I don't think you could undo it! Or maybe you could if you also amended to allow ex post facto law. Which would be a mess. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907377747] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>I don't think you could undo it! Or maybe you could if you also amended to allow ex post facto law. Which would be a mess.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 9:28:34 PM #134:	Corrik posted... I have literally no idea how that would work. As in how you think it should be handled? Or the legal workings of it? The latter is way simpler than it should be considering it's soooooooo corrupt. As has been noted by many - including Trump - the power of the President to pardon is absolute. In a kind of Air Bud way, there's no rule saying you can't pardon yourself. The idea is just so crazy no one apparently thought about it in a serious way. So while it would surely be challenged to the Supreme Court, Trump could issue a pardon to himself. And as Ford showed when pardoning Nixon for Watergate, you're allowed to be super vague about it and you don't even need the person to have been indicted. Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed with regards to Watergate to end the investigation after Nixon had resigned. So you just combine those two ideas and Trump could just pardon himself for "anything about the 2016 elections" or whatever. Again, there would obviously be court challenges to that, but the law honestly isn't clear about it! That might be legit! The only remedy available would be impeachment because pardons can't protect you from that. I'm just saying, the logic you're using for Manafort that there could be reasons it's done that aren't obstruction could apply here. If Trump thinks the investigation is hurting the country, as he often claims, and thinks it'd be better if we all "moved on" hey there's one. What I'm driving at is that I don't think that reason is good enough. I don't think it's as simple as "Well, there's a possible reason he could do this that isn't obstruction, so it can't be grounds for impeachment." --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907378205] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>I have literally no idea how that would work.</quote> As in how you think it should be handled? Or the legal workings of it? The latter is way simpler than it should be considering it's soooooooo corrupt. As has been noted by many - including Trump - the power of the President to pardon is absolute. In a kind of Air Bud way, there's no rule saying you can't pardon yourself. The idea is just so crazy no one apparently thought about it in a serious way. So while it would surely be challenged to the Supreme Court, Trump could issue a pardon to himself. And as Ford showed when pardoning Nixon for Watergate, you're allowed to be super vague about it and you don't even need the person to have been indicted. Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed with regards to Watergate to end the investigation after Nixon had resigned. So you just combine those two ideas and Trump could just pardon himself for "anything about the 2016 elections" or whatever. Again, there would obviously be court challenges to that, but the law honestly isn't clear about it! That might be legit! The only remedy available would be impeachment because pardons can't protect you from that. I'm just saying, the logic you're using for Manafort that there could be reasons it's done that aren't obstruction could apply here. If Trump thinks the investigation is hurting the country, as he often claims, and thinks it'd be better if we all "moved on" hey there's one. What I'm driving at is that I don't think that reason is good enough. I don't think it's as simple as "Well, there's a possible reason he could do this that isn't obstruction, so it can't be grounds for impeachment."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 9:35:29 PM #135:	I mean, I guess I'll add that personally I think SCOTUS would laugh the idea of a self-pardon out of the court but I'm not entirely sure where they could get that if you are a 100% true believer in STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST TEXTUAL READINGS ONLY. I think their rejection would be more like: "u srs?" because allowing a self-pardon basically would destroy the country/democracy. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907378574] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>I mean, I guess I'll add that personally I think SCOTUS would laugh the idea of a self-pardon out of the court but I'm not entirely sure where they could get that if you are a 100% true believer in STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST TEXTUAL READINGS ONLY. I think their rejection would be more like: "u srs?" because allowing a self-pardon basically would destroy the country/democracy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Not_an_Owl 08/22/18 9:47:42 PM #136:	xp1337 posted... I think their rejection would be more like: "u srs?" because allowing a self-pardon basically would destroy the country/democracy. When has that ever stopped Republicans before? --- Besides, marijuana is far more harmful than steroids. - BlitzBomb I headbang to Bruckner. <cite>Not_an_Owl posted [p:907379266] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>I think their rejection would be more like: "u srs?" because allowing a self-pardon basically would destroy the country/democracy.</quote> When has that ever stopped Republicans before?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 9:49:38 PM #137:	I don't think SCOTUS is that far gone yet! --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907379368] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>I don't think SCOTUS is that far gone yet!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 08/22/18 9:50:15 PM #138:	xp1337 posted... I mean, I guess I'll add that personally I think SCOTUS would laugh the idea of a self-pardon out of the court but I'm not entirely sure where they could get that if you are a 100% true believer in STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST TEXTUAL READINGS ONLY. I think their rejection would be more like: "u srs?" because allowing a self-pardon basically would destroy the country/democracy. It's really easy. The Constitution places one limitation on the pardon power - impeachment. So the founding fathers knew how to limit pardons, and chose not to put in any other ones. This is consistent with the legal theory that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is still the official position of the DOJ. If he can't be indicted and a pardon doesn't stop impeachment, a self-pardon wouldn't actually do anything, so why ban it? --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:907379399] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, I guess I'll add that personally I think SCOTUS would laugh the idea of a self-pardon out of the court but I'm not entirely sure where they could get that if you are a 100% true believer in STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST TEXTUAL READINGS ONLY. I think their rejection would be more like: "u srs?" because allowing a self-pardon basically would destroy the country/democracy.</quote> It's really easy. The Constitution places one limitation on the pardon power - impeachment. So the founding fathers knew how to limit pardons, and chose not to put in any other ones. This is consistent with the legal theory that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is still the official position of the DOJ. If he can't be indicted and a pardon doesn't stop impeachment, a self-pardon wouldn't actually do anything, so why ban it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Not_an_Owl 08/22/18 9:50:54 PM #139:	You're right, Kavanaugh hasn't been confirmed yet. --- Besides, marijuana is far more harmful than steroids. - BlitzBomb I headbang to Bruckner. <cite>Not_an_Owl posted [p:907379441] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>You're right, Kavanaugh hasn't been confirmed yet.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 9:54:42 PM #140:	red sox 777 posted... This is consistent with the legal theory that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is still the official position of the DOJ. If he can't be indicted and a pardon doesn't stop impeachment, a self-pardon wouldn't actually do anything, so why ban it? Because time continues to move forward and eventually a sitting president would have their term(s) end. At which point the legality of the self-pardon would become relevant. Actually, I'm going to regret this sidebar, but that has me wondering about statue of limitations. Is the timer running while someone is a sitting president? Would it be a legally viable strategy to try and run the clock by being president? More generally, these kinds of discussions are primarily why I believe Trump will never willingly resign. Being President is literally his strongest protection against all the allegations and legal challenges surrounding him. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907379642] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>This is consistent with the legal theory that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is still the official position of the DOJ. If he can't be indicted and a pardon doesn't stop impeachment, a self-pardon wouldn't actually do anything, so why ban it?</quote> Because time continues to move forward and eventually a sitting president would have their term(s) end. At which point the legality of the self-pardon would become relevant. Actually, I'm going to regret this sidebar, but that has me wondering about statue of limitations. Is the timer running while someone is a sitting president? Would it be a legally viable strategy to try and run the clock by being president? More generally, these kinds of discussions are primarily why I believe Trump will never willingly resign. Being President is literally his strongest protection against all the allegations and legal challenges surrounding him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 9:57:12 PM #141:	Not_an_Owl posted... You're right, Kavanaugh hasn't been confirmed yet. Interestingly, a number of Democratic Senators have taken a surprisingly (to me) strong line against Kavanaugh in light of the Manafort/Cohen news. I think Hirono, Harris, and Booker have all come out and said that they don't believe an unindicted co-conspirator should not have the ability to appoint judges to lifetime appointments on the highest court in the land. like woah that's way stronger language than i'd ever expect from them Of course, it means little since they don't have the numbers and Collins said she sees no basis to delay the hearings so "lol" --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907379792] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote>You're right, Kavanaugh hasn't been confirmed yet.</quote> Interestingly, a number of Democratic Senators have taken a surprisingly (to me) strong line against Kavanaugh in light of the Manafort/Cohen news. I think Hirono, Harris, and Booker have all come out and said that they don't believe an unindicted co-conspirator should not have the ability to appoint judges to lifetime appointments on the highest court in the land. like woah that's way stronger language than i'd ever expect from them Of course, it means little since they don't have the numbers and Collins said she sees no basis to delay the hearings so "lol"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 08/22/18 9:58:29 PM #142:	xp1337 posted... More generally, these kinds of discussions are primarily believe Trump will never willingly resign. Being President is literally his strongest protection against all the allegations and legal challenges surrounding him. I just realized that, if he loses in 2020, Im kind of afraid of his lame duck period --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:907379882] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote> More generally, these kinds of discussions are primarily believe Trump will never willingly resign. Being President is literally his strongest protection against all the allegations and legal challenges surrounding him.</quote> I just realized that, if he loses in 2020, Im kind of afraid of his lame duck period</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 08/22/18 10:00:01 PM #143:	If a President is impeached and removed in their first term, theres nothing that says they cant run again; right? <_< --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:907379943] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>If a President is impeached and removed in their first term, theres nothing that says they cant run again; right? <_<</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 08/22/18 10:03:59 PM #144:	xp1337 posted... Corrik posted... I have literally no idea how that would work. As in how you think it should be handled? Or the legal workings of it? The latter is way simpler than it should be considering it's soooooooo corrupt. As has been noted by many - including Trump - the power of the President to pardon is absolute. In a kind of Air Bud way, there's no rule saying you can't pardon yourself. The idea is just so crazy no one apparently thought about it in a serious way. So while it would surely be challenged to the Supreme Court, Trump could issue a pardon to himself. And as Ford showed when pardoning Nixon for Watergate, you're allowed to be super vague about it and you don't even need the person to have been indicted. Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed with regards to Watergate to end the investigation after Nixon had resigned. So you just combine those two ideas and Trump could just pardon himself for "anything about the 2016 elections" or whatever. Again, there would obviously be court challenges to that, but the law honestly isn't clear about it! That might be legit! The only remedy available would be impeachment because pardons can't protect you from that. I'm just saying, the logic you're using for Manafort that there could be reasons it's done that aren't obstruction could apply here. If Trump thinks the investigation is hurting the country, as he often claims, and thinks it'd be better if we all "moved on" hey there's one. What I'm driving at is that I don't think that reason is good enough. I don't think it's as simple as "Well, there's a possible reason he could do this that isn't obstruction, so it can't be grounds for impeachment." I would guess he can't be charged for a crime but could still be impeached. I dunno. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:907380166] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>I have literally no idea how that would work.</quote> As in how you think it should be handled? Or the legal workings of it? The latter is way simpler than it should be considering it's soooooooo corrupt. As has been noted by many - including Trump - the power of the President to pardon is absolute. In a kind of Air Bud way, there's no rule saying you can't pardon yourself. The idea is just so crazy no one apparently thought about it in a serious way. So while it would surely be challenged to the Supreme Court, Trump could issue a pardon to himself. And as Ford showed when pardoning Nixon for Watergate, you're allowed to be super vague about it and you don't even need the person to have been indicted. Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed with regards to Watergate to end the investigation after Nixon had resigned. So you just combine those two ideas and Trump could just pardon himself for "anything about the 2016 elections" or whatever. Again, there would obviously be court challenges to that, but the law honestly isn't clear about it! That might be legit! The only remedy available would be impeachment because pardons can't protect you from that. I'm just saying, the logic you're using for Manafort that there could be reasons it's done that aren't obstruction could apply here. If Trump thinks the investigation is hurting the country, as he often claims, and thinks it'd be better if we all "moved on" hey there's one. What I'm driving at is that I don't think that reason is good enough. I don't think it's as simple as "Well, there's a possible reason he could do this that isn't obstruction, so it can't be grounds for impeachment."</quote> I would guess he can't be charged for a crime but could still be impeached. I dunno.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 10:04:03 PM #145:	Jakyl25 posted... If a President is impeached and removed in their first term, theres nothing that says they cant run again; right? <_< Impeachment bars you from holding future office. It's why you sometimes still hear rumblings about impeaching Hillary! --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907380172] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>If a President is impeached and removed in their first term, theres nothing that says they cant run again; right? <_<</quote> Impeachment bars you from holding future office. It's why you sometimes still hear rumblings about impeaching Hillary!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 08/22/18 10:08:19 PM #146:	Removal you mean? Or is Bill SOL --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:907380383] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>Removal you mean? Or is Bill SOL</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 10:08:55 PM #147:	Corrik posted... I would guess he can't be charged for a crime but could still be impeached. I dunno. Correct, assuming the pardon were upheld by the courts. But I asked you if you felt that would be grounds for impeachment. From what you said about pardoning Manafort, it seems your standard for grounds for impeachment are not met if you can come up with an explanation that isn't obstruction. If Trump pardoned himself do you think: 1. Would it be grounds for impeachment? 2. If yes, do you think there's an explanation for such a self-pardon that is benign? 2a. If yes, why do you feel it's different in this case than were it Manafort? --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907380418] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>I would guess he can't be charged for a crime but could still be impeached. I dunno.</quote> Correct, assuming the pardon were upheld by the courts. But I asked you if you felt that would be grounds for impeachment. From what you said about pardoning Manafort, it seems your standard for grounds for impeachment are not met if you can come up with an explanation that isn't obstruction. If Trump pardoned himself do you think: 1. Would it be grounds for impeachment? 2. If yes, do you think there's an explanation for such a self-pardon that is benign? 2a. If yes, why do you feel it's different in this case than were it Manafort?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 08/22/18 10:13:13 PM #148:	Jakyl25 posted... Removal you mean? Or is Bill SOL Right, removal. Although... I guess it's optional? There was a federal judge who was impeached, removed, and then got elected to the House so =/ Looks like it's a separate vote to disqualify you from future office after a conviction. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:907380650] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>Removal you mean? Or is Bill SOL</quote> Right, removal. Although... I guess it's optional? There was a federal judge who was impeached, removed, and then got elected to the House so =/ Looks like it's a separate vote to disqualify you from future office after a conviction.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog 08/22/18 10:15:41 PM #149:	xp1337 posted... I mean, I guess I'll add that personally I think SCOTUS would laugh the idea of a self-pardon out of the court but I'm not entirely sure where they could get that if you are a 100% true believer in STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST TEXTUAL READINGS ONLY. I wonder why those are the kinds of people that Republicans want to be on the bench... --- ~Peaf~ <cite>Peace___Frog posted [p:907380784] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, I guess I'll add that personally I think SCOTUS would laugh the idea of a self-pardon out of the court but I'm not entirely sure where they could get that if you are a 100% true believer in STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST TEXTUAL READINGS ONLY. </quote> I wonder why those are the kinds of people that Republicans want to be on the bench...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 08/22/18 10:20:01 PM #150:	https://twitter.com/onlxn/status/1032427188119855104?s=21 What fresh hell is this And who ranked these headliners And theyre clearly trying to hide the fact that they booked Milo Yiannopolous --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:907381029] in Politics C... [t:76926642]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/onlxn/status/1032427188119855104?s=21 What fresh hell is this And who ranked these headliners And theyre clearly trying to hide the fact that they booked Milo Yiannopolous</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 188: Two for Tuesday (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 188: Two for Tuesday