Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 252: Voiding Our Special Relationship

(+) Yeah! (+)

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Mother fucking primary polls. Yang puts up a 4% and a 3% today and of course the 3% is in the qualifying poll and the 4% doesn't count.

Also the 3% was the first qualifying poll in nearly two weeks to even drop. This is so shitty. He has the support we just aren't being polled. I guess I should buy a land line

Dude sucks and isn't gonna win the nom. Get over it.

---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1204414588650807302

Literally admitting to asking them to interfere

But there was NO PRESSURE! that makes it okay
---

I am interested how many cases legally proceed when the supposed victim denies the action took place and succeeds.

And damn you are triggered, Jakyl. You are arguing with a Twitter link.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Dude sucks and isn't gonna win the nom. Get over it.

He won't win the nom I don't think, but he does not suck and he deserves to stay in the conversation and he has more than enough support to justify it.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

He won't win the nom I don't think, but he does not suck and he deserves to stay in the conversation and he has more than enough support to justify it.

Well, I mean, if he did he wouldn't be scraping to qualify.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I am interested how many cases legally proceed when the supposed victim denies the action took place and succeeds.

I don't buy this line of reasoning simply because Trump is still president of a large country which Ukraine still needs to stay in the good graces of, and therefore he still has leverage on Zelensky.
---

His base is ridiculously underrepresented in the demographics that get polled or it would not even be a near thing.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I am interested how many cases legally proceed when the supposed victim denies the action took place and succeeds.

And damn you are triggered, Jakyl. You are arguing with a Twitter link.

Please dont misuse the word triggered
---

Going by Corrik logic, I can bribe a cop -- and then so long as the cop denies being bribed (and accepting said bribe) neither of us can go to jail. Why don't more cops just accept bribes?!

---

Also I dont think Ukraine is the victim in these charges

The victim is the American people
---

Didn't President Zelenskiy campaign on ending corruption in Ukraine? Can he promise us that any investigation of the Bidens would have been fair? If so, I think there's no crime, no wrongdoing, here.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Going by Corrik logic, I can bribe a cop -- and then so long as the cop denies being bribed (and accepting said bribe) neither of us can go to jail. Why don't more cops just accept bribes?!

I asked how many cases succeed when the victim refuses to agree they were victimized. For example, how many rape cases proceed and convict when the girl supposedly raped denies being raped. Etc.


---

Corrik7 posted...

I asked how many cases succeed when the victim refuses to agree they were victimized. For example, how many rape cases proceed and convict when the girl supposedly raped denies being raped. Etc.

As Jakyl pointed out, Ukraine is not the victim here. The American Election system is the victim. Ukraine would be a co-conspirator.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

As Jakyl pointed out, Ukraine is not the victim here. The American Election system is the victim. Ukraine would be a co-conspirator.

So then Ukraine is guilty of something here then as well?

Assuming accurate portrayal. How do we deal with Ukraine then?

---

Impeach Ukraine
---

Corrik7 posted...

I asked how many cases succeed when the victim refuses to agree they were victimized. For example, how many rape cases proceed and convict when the girl supposedly raped denies being raped. Etc.

how are any of us supposed to have an answer to this question? I dont how many cases exist, let alone how many succeed, double let alone how many succeed when the victim refuses to admit theyre a victim.
---

Conveniently Trump has released proof himself (the "perfect phone call" "transcript"), so we don't need testimony from Zelensky

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Impeach Ukraine

Surely we would have to deny them all future financial aid right for being a co-conspirator in victimizing the American electorate?

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

how are any of us supposed to have an answer to this question? I dont how many cases exist, let alone how many succeed, double let alone how many succeed when the victim refuses to admit theyre a victim.

I mean I am sure it happens all the time in domestic violence right. Even with proof of it happening or eyewitness testimony. Woman wants to stay with the man who hit her or vice versa because they are reliant. The other has leverage over them. Etc. How many of these cases succeed.

I don't buy Ukraine is a co-conspirator here. They would have to be a victim of the abuse of power and the leverage we used over them in order to have pressured them into a quid pro quo.

---

I mean they didnt actually conspire. Had they gone along with Trump then they would be co-conspirators.

Instead their was an attempt by Trump to make them co-conspirators but they held off on answering long enough for Trump to get caught.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So then Ukraine is guilty of something here then as well?

Assuming accurate portrayal. How do we deal with Ukraine then?

I may be wrong on this, but I dont think we deal with Ukraine at all because they have no responsibility to us unlike Trump.

Its like if the US was a McDonalds and Trump is a McDonalds employee selling McNuggets under the table to some dude (Ukraine) for his own benefit. If they find out, McDonalds can punish the employee, but they have no power over the random dude and the random dude didnt really do anything wrong anyway. He was just buying McNuggets, which is fine. The problem is the employee was selling the McNuggets for himself instead of for McDonalds.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Conveniently Trump has released proof himself (the "perfect phone call" "transcript"), so we don't need testimony from Zelensky

Seriously people need to stop forgetting that the "transcript" is sufficiently damning all by itself. And that's without it even being a word for word account.

"America has been good to Ukraine but Ukraine has not always been good to America. By the way here are some politically motivated things I would like."

That is enough all by itself. Then consider the timing of the call in relation to the military aid being held without cause. Then consider the military aid got released as soon as the events of the call were poised to come out. There is more than enough to justify abuse of of powers.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So then Ukraine is guilty of something here then as well?

Assuming accurate portrayal. How do we deal with Ukraine then?

Assuming accurate portrayal Trump proposed to enter into a conspiracy with Ukraine, which was not accepted by Ukraine. So Ukraine would not have committed any crime. I feel like the idea of charging someone for attempted conspiracy to commit a crime has probably been discussed in caselaw but I haven't looked at this since law school and can't remember what the analysis is.

---

"Co-conspirator" isn't the correct framing. Ukraine is a victim of extortion, but Trump still holds massive leverage over them (just like the abused spouse in Corrik's analogy). The American people, however, are also a victim, which is why this so impeachable.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I don't buy Ukraine is a co-conspirator here. They would have to be a victim of the abuse of power and the leverage we used over them in order to have pressured them into a quid pro quo.

One can be both.

If your employer blackmails your boss into firing you, then your boss is both a victim and a co-conspirator.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I mean I am sure it happens all the time in domestic violence right. Even with proof of it happening or eyewitness testimony. Woman wants to stay with the man who hit her or vice versa because they are reliant. The other has leverage over them. Etc. How many of these cases succeed.

sure but how would we know the answer to that, I dont think anyone here claims to have an absolute knowledge of every domestic violence case ever??

seems like a question for google or something
---

https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-violence/the-recanting-victim-and-domestic-violence.html

this article makes it sound like the answer is more than never, less than always

its a thing that can happen if theres sufficient evidence, but the lack of a cooperating victim obviously makes things more difficult
---

Corrik7 posted...

Surely we would have to deny them all future financial aid right for being a co-conspirator in victimizing the American electorate?

Not if they didnt go through with it
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

sure but how would we know the answer to that, I dont think anyone here claims to have an absolute knowledge of every domestic violence case ever??

seems like a question for google or something

Ray Rice is probably one. The evidence was overwhelming that his soon to be wife couldn't even deny it which she would have otherwise

---

Reminder that in Corriks mind, we need to start with the assumption that everything Trump does in office is intended to benefit the American people because thats his job.

I dont see how you could possibly twist this whole thing to support that assumption. There is no reading of this where Trump is not at the very least putting his own wants ahead of the American people, who voted directly for Representatives that approved this aid, and who do not want elections influenced by foreign powers
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Reminder that in Corriks mind, we need to start with the assumption that everything Trump does in office is intended to benefit the American people because thats his job.

I dont see how you could possibly twist this whole thing to support that assumption. There is no reading of this where Trump is not at the very least putting his own wants ahead of the American people, who voted directly for Representatives that approved this aid, and who do not want elections influenced by foreign powers

You assume that the American People do not want their elections influenced by foreign powers. But at this point the Republican Party could probably run Vladimir Putin in 2024 and he'd win at least 150 electoral votes.

---

Did somebody say impeachable obstruction of justice??

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1204459435936157696?s=21

---

no, no one said that
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Reminder that in Corriks mind, we need to start with the assumption that everything Trump does in office is intended to benefit the American people because thats his job.

I dont see how you could possibly twist this whole thing to support that assumption. There is no reading of this where Trump is not at the very least putting his own wants ahead of the American people, who voted directly for Representatives that approved this aid, and who do not want elections influenced by foreign powers

No I read either here or from a democratic politician today that if this were a jury trial that the jury would come back guilty in seconds. I don't think so. I think there is reasonable doubt and it would be a not guilty or hung jury result.

---

Well Democrats are dumb. Ive been on a jury. Its disrespectful to the concept of a jury to say that any trial would be over in seconds.

I dont see any reasonable doubt that he was abusing his power to get a foreign nation to help him win an election.
---

Corrik7 posted...

No I read either here or from a democratic politician today that if this were a jury trial that the jury would come back guilty in seconds. I don't think so. I think there is reasonable doubt and it would be a not guilty or hung jury result.

Even if I buy that there is reasonable doubt on abuse of power (and I don't), what's the reasonable doubt on obstruction of congress?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Even if I buy that there is reasonable doubt on abuse of power (and I don't), what's the reasonable doubt on obstruction of congress?

The President is allowed to obstruct congress because, and you never hear about this, Article II gives the president Unlimited Power to do whatever he wants

---

Obstruction of Congress by the President is not a crime. I don't think any jury is going to convict a President of obstructing Congress, anymore than they are going to convict Nancy Pelosi of obstructing the President.

---

Just as how obstruction in a criminal trial must be a crime, obstruction in an impeachment investigation must be an impeachable offense. Otherwise a president can commit other impeachable offenses and then use the vast powers of the office to cover it up and block any evidence from seeing the light of day.

(And as has been pointed out repeatedly, something doesnt have to be a crime to be impeachable; indeed, it makes no sense for many impeachable offenses to be crimes, as many of them (like withholding Congressionally allocated aid in order to achieve domestic political ends) can only be done by the president, for which the proper remedy is impeachment).

---

I haven't seen any evidence of any obstruction of the investigation, if that's what it means. Unless obstruction now is equivalent to making a defense, in which case it most certainly is not a crime.

---

Ordering witnesses to impeachable conduct not to testify by asserting a nonexistent absolute privilege is obstruction.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Obstruction of Congress by the President is not a crime. I don't think any jury is going to convict a President of obstructing Congress, anymore than they are going to convict Nancy Pelosi of obstructing the President.

Can the Senate rule that Trump is technically guilty of the impeachment charges, but not remove him?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Ordering witnesses to impeachable conduct not to testify by asserting a nonexistent absolute privilege is obstruction.

It might be right now. If the Senate dismisses the charge (as opposed to just finding Trump not guilty), a precedent will be set that the conduct you describe is not obstruction, or obstruction is not an impeachable offense.

Why are Democrats so eager to set a precedent that the President can get away with whatever he wants? A reporter asked Nancy Pelosi whether she was concerned about what checks would remain on Trump if he wins reelection and she said she didn't want to even think about that!

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Can the Senate rule that Trump is technically guilty of the impeachment charges, but not remove him?

I don't think so. But, with a majority of the vote (not just 1/3+1) they can dismiss the charges without finding whether Trump factually committed them or not by ruling that even if he did, they don't constitute impeachable conduct.

---

red sox 777 posted...

It might be right now. If the Senate dismisses the charge (as opposed to just finding Trump not guilty), a precedent will be set that the conduct you describe is not obstruction, or obstruction is not an impeachable offense.

Why are Democrats so eager to set a precedent that the President can get away with whatever he wants? A reporter asked Nancy Pelosi whether she was concerned about what checks would remain on Trump if he wins reelection and she said she didn't want to even think about that!

Basically your argument here is that the Dems should not hold Trump accountable because it would... restrict their future ability to hold him accountable? How does that make sense?

If they can never use that power to ensure its continued existence, why does it matter that it exists anyway?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Basically your argument here is that the Dems should not hold Trump accountable because it would... restrict their future ability to hold him accountable? How does that make sense?

If they can never use that power to ensure its continued existence, why does it matter that it exists anyway?

Yes! Precisely! A day may come when Trump goes over the line, when his acts go so far that there is enough support with the public and in Congress to remove him. When and if that day comes, you want to make sure you have the tools remaining to impeach and remove him. As long as you have those tools, it also acts as a check on any president - who will restrain their actions knowing that they could be removed from office for going too far.

If you impeach now you will firmly establish that everything Trump has done to date is 100% okay. Trump or any future president will have to go far beyond what he has done so far before there is even any more discussion about impeaching and removing him. That is definitely bad for the country. And if Democrats could think 2 steps ahead, they would see that.

---

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1204491541743644674?s=21

@Forceful_Dragon

---

fuck yeah get wrecked tulsi

---

Don't worry. Tulsi already claimed she's boycotting the next debate even if she made it, anyway.

Because we all know how strongly she stuck to that last time.

How much do you want to bet she sticks with the rhetoric of "I chose not to be in the next debate" despite not making it anyway?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Even if I buy that there is reasonable doubt on abuse of power (and I don't), what's the reasonable doubt on obstruction of congress?

I don't know the details argued both ways tbh.

---