Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 225: Pardon Me For My War Crimes Against Good Titles

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mega Mana posted...

However, as it seems I and others are the few to read the report, including members of the house

well i mean the chair of senate judiciary literally stated he had not read the whole thing

Amash (who has somehow beaten Democratic leadership on this) picked up a primary challenger who is primarying him based on Amash's assessment of the report... and who admitted he has not read the report.
---

I think Mueller's position is absolutely correct and this saves SCOTUS the embarrassment of having to issue a ruling that the president can't be prosecuted for obstruction. Such a ruling could easily cause confusion as people may think it means the president is above the law.

Well, Mueller has laid it out. The president is not in the position of the King. There is a remedy, and it is in the hands of the elected representatives of the People.
---

red sox 777 posted...

There is a remedy, and it is in the hands of the elected representatives of the People.

And they want no part of it
---

xp1337 posted...

The idea that it's specifically Gravel is laughable as opposed to them trying to keep out say Williamson or Bullock or deBlasio (not that I think he's reached the original goals since his candidacy is so new but it was literally so easy to hit those thresholds I wouldn't be shocked if he could get there somehow.)

His entire campaign is about getting into the debates and saying the most inflammatory things about the dncs favored candidates that he can and then drop out lol I agree it likely wasn't just because of him due to the large field, but he is definitely the one they least want up there.

What's the solution when the people decide they don't care about the Constitution any more? It can't be an amendment because they don't care.
---

Well Trump himself has now moved from "complete exoneration" to "there was insufficient evidence", apparently. This...seems like a politically unsavvy move to me? But then again what do I know.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1133759237136494592

Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.

---

pyresword posted...

Well Trump himself has now moved from "complete exoneration" to "there was insufficient evidence", apparently. This...seems like a politically unsavvy move to me? But then again what do I know.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1133759237136494592

Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.

Those mean exactly the same thing.
---

No they don't because this is the court of public opinion and not the court of law.
---

SUFFICIENTLY EXONERATED folks
---

So basically.. all we need to do is get China to hack our elections and make sure we have a Democratic Supermajority and a Democratic President. Then obstruct the investigation, and it's all good.
---

pyresword posted...

No they don't because this is the court of public opinion and not the court of law.

The Senate is a court of public opinion I suppose. But we know how they will rule. At least 53 votes for exoneration.
---

Didnt Trump claim five innocent black kids were rapists, even after they were LITERALLY exonerated by evidence?
---

Reminder that Barr blatantly and explicitly lied to Congress while under oath, as Mueller's statements today demonstrated

Good thing Trump isn't in charge of the judiciary!
---

what will the CNN headline be when Trump wins re-election?
---

Espeon posted...

Didnt Trump claim five innocent black kids were rapists, even after they were LITERALLY exonerated by evidence?

Yes, the Central Park Five.

They were coerced into giving a false confession after being deprived of food, water, and sleep. Trump took out a full page ad in all of NYC's major papers calling for NY to reinstate the death penalty. He's never apologized and as recently as 2016 he has maintained their guilt, citing their coerced confession. Edit: There was a confession in 2002 for the crime that matched DNA evidence at the crime that led to their exoneration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/28/trumps-crime-bill-attacks-joe-biden-ignore-his-own-harsh-response-criminal-activity
---

neonreaper posted...

what will the CNN headline be when Trump wins re-election?

We Did It
---

The angle I was coming from is that if public opinion turns against the President then the Senate will also turn against the President.

To me, it seems like that tweet is something that's likely to paint the president in a bad light in the eyes of the public, regardless of what such a statement would mean in a court of law. If this were a game of Mafia I would call it a scumslip, though I admit there are a few problems with that analogy. (among others, I will point out that the deduction process in Mafia starts from the assumption that someone is the bad guy because that's how the game works, so in that setting "scumslips" are entirely damning whereas that is not and shouldn't be the case here)
---

pyresword posted...

The angle I was coming from is that if public opinion turns against the President then the Senate will also turn against the President.

Only if Republican voters turn against Trump, which is... unlikely.
---

pyresword posted...

The angle I was coming from is that if public opinion turns against the President then the Senate will also turn against the President.

To me, it seems like that tweet is something that's likely to paint the president in a bad light in the eyes of the public, regardless of what such a statement would mean in a court of law. If this were a game of Mafia I would call it a scumslip, though I admit there are a few problems with that analogy. (among others, I will point out that the deduction process in Mafia starts from the assumption that someone is the bad guy because that's how the game works, so in that setting "scumslips" are entirely damning whereas that is not and shouldn't be the case here)

That makes sense, although I don't think this will really have any effect because everyone agrees, more or less, that acts that would constitute obstruction if someone not legally authorized to do them did them. The questions were (1) whether it is a crime within the power of the executive to prosecute and the judiciary to decide when the president does those acts, and (2) if politically, the public/Congress want to remove the president from office.

Mueller has answered (1) as no. I suspect Trump using "insufficient evidence" is a slip, because in his mind he cannot see any difference between "insufficient evidence" and "complete and total exoneration" after having spent decades being involved in thousands of lawsuits. Hillary had the same problem where it just didn't occur to her how her words sounded to people not familiar with the legal system. But Trump has already created a reputation of extreme imprecision of language, so no one who supports him is going to care to analyze the minutiae of his word choice.
---

Talking about Russia, Mueller, obstruction, collusion, conspiracy, etc is pointless.

Anyone at this point who has still given Trump the benefit of the doubt will never change their mind on him.

They are literally incapable of admitting it, because it means they were the wrong one this entire time they thought they were owning the libs.
---

How can someone commit a crime, commit treason, to become the President and then, welp, he's already president, can't do anything even tho he literally wouldn't be without his crimes. Wtf?

PerfectChaosZ posted...

How can someone commit a crime, commit treason, to become the President and then, welp, he's already president, can't do anything even tho he literally wouldn't be without his crimes. Wtf?

The issue is that they found no evidence of collusion during the campaign. The obstruction stuff was all stuff that happened after he took office.
---

"Obstruction doesn't matter! Obviously only collusion counts and he did everything he could to obstruct any evidence of that!"

For anyone who has redsox blocked, I summed up everything you're not seeing.
---

kevwaffles posted...

"Obstruction doesn't matter! Obviously only collusion counts and he did everything he could to obstruct any evidence of that!"

For anyone who has redsox blocked, I summed up everything you're not seeing.

All I'm saying is repeating what Robert Mueller said. Which is also what Bill Barr did. It seems like Democrats won't get it until the chief justice announces the verdict of the Senate and Trump is exonerated.
---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

How can someone commit a crime, commit treason, to become the President and then, welp, he's already president, can't do anything even tho he literally wouldn't be without his crimes. Wtf?

Because the OLC (and likely the Founders) assumed Congress would take action in that event and impeach and convict a president in that scenario.

a poor assumption

Anyway, opening impeachment proceedings in this instance isn't even really about removal. It's not exactly a secret the Senate will almost certainly not convict (I'm being generous here by even going as far as "almost certainly not" but hey Republicans (and the media) didn't turn on Nixon until the tapes came out even though Watergate was long underway as an investigation by then.)

It's about what's right. Don't have a link handy but AOC put this pretty succinctly. Just because the Senate won't do its job doesn't mean the House shouldn't do its. Inaction here is setting its own precedent that the president is basically an autocrat that can't be held responsible for anything.

Warren has been consistently right on this issue, and just last week (or two?) Harris - while weaker than Warren - noted that while we should go into this with open eyes that the Senate will acquit, that proceedings should begin.

Pelosi's fear on this issue, and with her statement today on this I've lost whatever shred of hope I had that she had a strategy to get to impeachment here, appears to be that because impeachment won't get through the Senate it'll harden Trump support and weaken Democrats in 2020. I assume this is based on looking back on the Clinton impeachment, but it's crazy to even compare the two. I've generally supported her running of the House thus far, but if she won't act on this the Democrats need to find someone who will to take leadership.
---

It literally does not matter if Trump has legally committed Obstruction of Justice because this is about impeaching him and not about charging him with crimes.

Well, at least directly it doesn't matter. It can indirectly matter if Republicans (the voters or the lawmakers) believe that a president shouldn't be impeached before being charged with a crime, or something.
---

xp1337 posted...

PerfectChaosZ posted...

How can someone commit a crime, commit treason, to become the President and then, welp, he's already president, can't do anything even tho he literally wouldn't be without his crimes. Wtf?

Because the OLC (and likely the Founders) assumed Congress would take action in that event and impeach and convict a president in that scenario.

a poor assumption

Anyway, opening impeachment proceedings in this instance isn't even really about removal. It's not exactly a secret the Senate will almost certainly not convict (I'm being generous here by even going as far as "almost certainly not" but hey Republicans (and the media) didn't turn on Nixon until the tapes came out even though Watergate was long underway as an investigation by then.)

It's about what's right. Don't have a link handy but AOC put this pretty succinctly. Just because the Senate won't do its job doesn't mean the House shouldn't do its. Inaction here is setting its own precedent that the president is basically an autocrat that can't be held responsible for anything.

Warren has been consistently right on this issue, and just last week (or two?) Harris - while weaker than Warren - noted that while we should go into this with open eyes that the Senate will acquit, that proceedings should begin.

Pelosi's fear on this issue, and with her statement today on this I've lost whatever shred of hope I had that she had a strategy to get to impeachment here, appears to be that because impeachment won't get through the Senate it'll harden Trump support and weaken Democrats in 2020. I assume this is based on looking back on the Clinton impeachment, but it's crazy to even compare the two. I've generally supported her running of the House thus far, but if she won't act on this the Democrats need to find someone who will to take leadership.

The idea is that you save impeachment for the president that actually stands on Fifth Avenue and shoots someone. The reason the Senate will acquit for sure is that the charges are weak. Stronger than the charges against Andrew Johnson and probably weaker than the charges against Bill Clinton.
---

Also I'm not in any way convinced that not impeaching Trump would set any dangerous precedent, even though I do think his actions warrant impeachment. (This does not necessarily mean that I think Democrats should begin impeachment proceedings, and indeed my gut reaction is to say they should not.)

Reminder that the American public as a whole does not actually support impeachment at the present time. (Though, I believe the 538 article I read was about 3 weeks ago I'm guessing public opinion hasn't shifted a whole lot since then.)
---

red sox 777 posted...

The idea is that you save impeachment for the president that actually stands on Fifth Avenue and shoots someone. The reason the Senate will acquit for sure is that the charges are weak. Stronger than the charges against Andrew Johnson and probably weaker than the charges against Bill Clinton

The thing about the charges against Clinton are that he was specifically impeached for perjury, and then obstruction on account of that (IIRC).

Trump hasnt/wont testify, but if he did, his nature will not allow him to not perjure himself.
---

pyresword posted...

Also I'm not in any way convinced that not impeaching Trump would set any dangerous precedent, even though I do think his actions warrant impeachment. (This does not necessarily mean that I think Democrats should begin impeachment proceedings, and indeed my gut reaction is to say they should not.)

Reminder that the American public as a whole does not actually support impeachment at the present time. (Though, I believe the 538 article I read was about 3 weeks ago I'm guessing public opinion hasn't shifted a whole lot since then.)

The thing is, if Dems dont do impeachment and then manage to lose 2020, theyre gonna look like opportunistic hypocrites (like McConnell vis a vis that other need story) if they turn around and try it then, and also waiting that long will undercut their case.
---

And as for Nixon - Nixon's campaign committed burglary (probably at his direction or with his approval) and got caught. There is no dispute that the law against burglary is constitutional or that burglary is serious when it is directed at the opposition for the purpose of winning the election.

If you want to remove a president for purely political reasons without any conduct that would be a crime legally, sure, Congress can do that. But a political remedy requires a political process, and to get that, you have to win the election. Democrats lost the Senate. They don't get to toss out the elected president simply because they don't like him.

If they try, the Senate sets its own rules of procedure, and should allocate an equal amount of time to testimony about Hillary's emails as is given to the House to prosecute its case.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The idea is that you save impeachment for the president that actually stands on Fifth Avenue and shoots someone. The reason the Senate will acquit for sure is that the charges are weak. Stronger than the charges against Andrew Johnson and probably weaker than the charges against Bill Clinton

The thing about the charges against Clinton are that he was specifically impeached for perjury, and then obstruction on account of that (IIRC).

Trump hasnt/wont testify, but if he did, his nature will not allow him to not perjure himself.

Trump will not testify without a direct order from the US Supreme Court telling him to testify.
---

https://reason.com/2019/05/29/white-privilege-study-sympathetic-black-people/?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Interesting study
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

https://reason.com/2019/05/29/white-privilege-study-sympathetic-black-people/?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Interesting study

This describes San Francisco perfectly. The attitude among the affluent is that one's own success is based on merit, other people's success is based on privilege, and other people's failure is based on lack of merit.
---

I like how the author of the article spends so much time theorizing about what the effect could be to our youth if they learn about white privilege in class, and then the actual author of the study is like nah fam, thats not how those courses work.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The idea is that you save impeachment for the president that actually stands on Fifth Avenue and shoots someone. The reason the Senate will acquit for sure is that the charges are weak. Stronger than the charges against Andrew Johnson and probably weaker than the charges against Bill Clinton

The thing about the charges against Clinton are that he was specifically impeached for perjury, and then obstruction on account of that (IIRC).

Trump hasnt/wont testify, but if he did, his nature will not allow him to not perjure himself.

Also, I don't think Trump believes in the idea of objective reality, so it might impossible for him to intentionally lie. I'm not sure if he can even understand the idea of objective reality at this point.
---

Also since when does Seph read reason.com? You trending libertarian? Republicans and Democrats dont give a shit about reason
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also since when does Seph read reason.com? You trending libertarian? Republicans and Democrats dont give a shit about reason

Republicans don't care where something comes from, if it helps the party. A good and loyal Republican would post an article from Pravda, Izvestia, or the New York Times if it helps the Republican Party.
---

red sox 777 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The idea is that you save impeachment for the president that actually stands on Fifth Avenue and shoots someone. The reason the Senate will acquit for sure is that the charges are weak. Stronger than the charges against Andrew Johnson and probably weaker than the charges against Bill Clinton

The thing about the charges against Clinton are that he was specifically impeached for perjury, and then obstruction on account of that (IIRC).

Trump hasnt/wont testify, but if he did, his nature will not allow him to not perjure himself.

Also, I don't think Trump believes in the idea of objective reality, so it might impossible for him to intentionally lie. I'm not sure if he can even understand the idea of objective reality at this point.

Please don't start this shit again.
---

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-wanted-uss-john-mccain-out-of-sight-during-trump-japan-visit-11559173470

Who gives a fuck about John McCain, but everyone should be afraid of a President this comically petty.

This is literally like some cartoon shit.
---

Just another example of how class can't be bought!
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-wanted-uss-john-mccain-out-of-sight-during-trump-japan-visit-11559173470

Who gives a fuck about John McCain, but everyone should be afraid of a President this comically petty.

This is literally like some cartoon shit.

The Navy just denied receiving any such order.

It's pretty sad that it's virtually impossible to know what's true these days. I could see both the news media rushing this story out without confirming anything because it's bad for Trump, yet I could also see Trump directing the Navy PR team to lie for him. What a terrible time to be alive!
---

The White House Military Office definitely did have emails discussing the possibility with "low-level officers" but supposedly it never went past that.

Fwiw I'll buy that Trump himself had nothing to do with it because that would require him knowing the names of the ships in advance, which sounds too much like doing his job to me.
---

"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected," says a man who definitely asked Russia - on live television - to help him get elected.
---

It's certainly a silly time to be alive, but we'll save terrible for a few decades when we're all dying.
---

Something I really don't get about Donald Trump.

Ask a Trump Supporter 7 years ago about Donald Trump, and a lot of them would probably say they don't like him at all. They'd call him an attention whore, and a charlatan. Those same people now worship the ground he walks on. Do they not get that they've now been conned?
---

Ashethan posted...

Something I really don't get about Donald Trump.

Ask a Trump Supporter 7 years ago about Donald Trump, and a lot of them would probably say they don't like him at all. They'd call him an attention whore, and a charlatan. Those same people now worship the ground he walks on. Do they not get that they've now been conned?

Trump is on their team now and he's winning, so they love him. Think of it like a player changing teams in sports; how many fans would hold a grudge against a former rival player if he came to your team and carried them to the title?
---

If people feel conned, they will say so. I don't know why you would expect people to feel conned right now when the economy is so strong, and that was Trump's core promise.
---

Ashethan posted...

Something I really don't get about Donald Trump.

Ask a Trump Supporter 7 years ago about Donald Trump, and a lot of them would probably say they don't like him at all. They'd call him an attention whore, and a charlatan. Those same people now worship the ground he walks on. Do they not get that they've now been conned?

He started telling them what they wanted to hear, that the news media is shit (it is), and Mexican immigrants and Muslims are causing the problems in this country (they arent)
---