PDA

View Full Version : If the dots connect and conspiracy with a foreign power is proven:



John Smith
11-29-2018, 10:21 AM
Then what?

If it is well proven that Trump's campaign did, in fact, conspire with Russia, would it have to be proven that this conspiracy changed the results?

Will the Republicans in the senate reach a point where they cannot continue to protect Trump?

Is impeachment of Trump (and Pence, elected via the same conspiracy) adequate?

Would the court have the authority to void an election?

Art Haberland
11-29-2018, 10:28 AM
This is one of those questions that have never faced us as a nation before. If it can be proven that the Presidency was bought by an foreign power to weaken us, how much can we undo? I don't mean this just with The Donald and his Administration. What happens next time? What if China is the one to influence our next election and that president enacts a lot of policy that helps China, including nominating SC justices that are partial towards China? Are we stuck with them or can things be "reset"?

With The Donald, it gets even harder. Even if it could be proven 100% that he would not have been elected without outside help, he has such a vocal and dare I say, Dangerous, group of supporters that can he be removed? Nobody mourned for Nixon, Most of this country was happy to see him go, can the same be said for today's president?

John Smith
11-29-2018, 11:34 AM
Yes, this is a new place for the country.

Part of me believe NO ONE should profit from illegal activity, and that would include lifetime appointments made by a president who profited from illegal activity.

I have no idea if/how we would be able to unwind any of this

paulf
11-29-2018, 11:50 AM
The best that can happen is that It will near impossible in the future to do this.

skaraborgcraft
11-29-2018, 01:45 PM
You should ask Poroshenko......so far it seems foreign "management" in elections is no big deal. If you want secure elections for yourselfs, it smacks of hypocrisy how you interfere with others.

Osborne Russell
11-29-2018, 01:56 PM
Conspiracy to do what with a foreign power?

A violation of domestic (US) law is a crime in the US.

A violation of the other nation's law might be many things in many places, not just a violation of their law but also of international law, including treaties.

Trump conspiring with Putin could be a violation of NATO, meaning, member nations would have a say.

George Jung
11-29-2018, 01:58 PM
You should ask Poroshenko......so far it seems foreign "management" in elections is no big deal. If you want secure elections for yourselfs, it smacks of hypocrisy how you interfere with others.

Thank you, Comrade.

Jim Mahan
11-29-2018, 02:18 PM
He does have a point re the U.S. interfering with other countries elections and government and popular democratic movements with CIA funds and weapons advisers and propaganda.

That would be mostly but not exclusively the R conservative MIC lizard overlords. The lizard overlords aren't necessarily partisan except that they know, just as tmrp appropriated from someone with a brain, 'the Rs are so stupid they'll believe anything.' Including Brietbart, and the Russian FSB.

Still. The thing to do is fix it without the MIC money people connected to the process or the outcome. It would not take much real democratic process to then 'unwind' the illegitimate.

Sky Blue
11-29-2018, 02:36 PM
The whole thing is a witch hunt. Michael Cohen and Roger Stone? That's where we are at this point? Roger Stone? Mueller whining to the press that Manafort continues to lie?

Gimme a break.

The whole thing is a crap show to cover for British and Australian malfeasance in cooking up in a fake dossier paid for by Clinton lawyers in order to perpetuate a fraud on the FISA court in obtaining a wiretap order of Trump campaign officials.

It makes Watergate look almost quaint.

skuthorp
11-29-2018, 02:49 PM
Even if it is proven donald and the Russian/Chinese/et al will get away with it because the senate that was were complicit, and your justice system has no process that can deal with the imperial presidency and a conspiracy at such a level.

BrianY
11-29-2018, 02:55 PM
There are two separate issues: potential violations of US campaign laws and the validity of the election. Everyone should be very careful to not assume otherwise.

If Trump is found to have violated campaign laws, that does not invalidate the election. It opens him and his campaign up to legal penalties (fines, jail time) but in no way negates the validity of the votes that were cast for him or the election process. So it could turn out that he is convicted of a crime but still remains president. Congress would have to impeach him to remove him from office, which they might well do if he's convicted.

Russia's involvement in the election also doesn't necessarily invalidate the election result although it is potentially a violation of US campaign law. If all Russia did was to essentially run an advocacy campaign in an attempt to sway voters to support a particular candidate, that also does not in any way invalidate the votes or the election. If, on the other hand, Russia directly tampered with voting machines, manipulated vote counts or otherwise corrupted the voting process, that would be reason to invalidate the election result.

Yeadon
11-29-2018, 03:01 PM
Then what?

If it is well proven that Trump's campaign did, in fact, conspire with Russia, would it have to be proven that this conspiracy changed the results?

Will the Republicans in the senate reach a point where they cannot continue to protect Trump?

Is impeachment of Trump (and Pence, elected via the same conspiracy) adequate?

Would the court have the authority to void an election?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9oUnC8JtXY

TomF
11-29-2018, 03:09 PM
The whole thing is a witch hunt...I don't think that's a very nice way to talk about the several people who've pleaded guilty to felonies, and are cooperating. But that's up to you, I guess. Look at all those witches they've bagged, eh? Quite a haul, in record time as such investigations go. Just now, it appears that we're getting closer to the obstruction and collusion elements of the investigation's results. That follows the path that many (both here, and the professional commentators) anticipated: tie up the smaller fish on lesser charges, and use the information they provide to build the more serious case against the bigger fish. It's how organized crime investigations typically work, so we're told.

John Smith
11-29-2018, 03:34 PM
There are two separate issues: potential violations of US campaign laws and the validity of the election. Everyone should be very careful to not assume otherwise.

If Trump is found to have violated campaign laws, that does not invalidate the election. It opens him and his campaign up to legal penalties (fines, jail time) but in no way negates the validity of the votes that were cast for him or the election process. So it could turn out that he is convicted of a crime but still remains president. Congress would have to impeach him to remove him from office, which they might well do if he's convicted.

Russia's involvement in the election also doesn't necessarily invalidate the election result although it is potentially a violation of US campaign law. If all Russia did was to essentially run an advocacy campaign in an attempt to sway voters to support a particular candidate, that also does not in any way invalidate the votes or the election. If, on the other hand, Russia directly tampered with voting machines, manipulated vote counts or otherwise corrupted the voting process, that would be reason to invalidate the election result.

It may be difficult to establish the totality of Russia's impact, but we may well KNOW the campaign and Russia conspired to sway the election.

If that is proven, the question becomes one of "Do we need to prove it did sway the election, or only that it may have swayed the election?" Does anyone get to benefit from such illegal acts?

Could the court order a special election, or a do over, Clinton vs Trump?

TomF
11-29-2018, 03:36 PM
No, IMO. There's no provision for a do-over, only for muddling through going forwards.

Gerarddm
11-29-2018, 03:39 PM
What TomF said.

oznabrag
11-29-2018, 03:52 PM
No, IMO. There's no provision for a do-over, only for muddling through going forwards.
There is a provision for jailing Trumpence and installing President Pelosi.

Jim Mahan
11-29-2018, 04:03 PM
If all Russia did was to essentially run an advocacy campaign in an attempt to sway voters to support a particular candidate, that also does not in any way invalidate the votes or the election.

This is all Russia did only in a particularly narrow, legalstic sense. What they did, and there is already ample evidence, is subject our unwitting general population to a massive persistent textbook program of cold war tactics. An act of war. Not an exercise of their freedom to participate or their freedom of speech.

It is exactly, minus the internet until it was invented, the same program the Soviet KGB and now the Russian FSB have been using in countries in South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

We have been doing some of the same things, in our own fashion, supporting right wing autocrats and suppressing emerging democratic popular movements, in a lot of the same places, and ultimately for the same reasons. In the case of the U.S. foreign policy, we were helping to keep those movements, from 'destablizing' the country. Putting in someone like Saddam Hussein to keep things in control, specifically for the same economic reasons, to keep the cost of peasant labor in third world countries such that we can afford cheap crap in Walmart. In a way, tmrp and Walmart and Putin and the CIA, and the Rex Tillersons and the other pirate oligarchs are all in cahoots.

Russia's 'meddling' in our democratic elections isn't just something that happened and then all of a sudden we have right wing aholes putting tmrp in the White House using social media..

Even when all the smoke and dust of the trmp and R implosion clears, we, the general public and electorate probably won't ever really know, the depth and the expense and the cost of the 'meddling.'

StevenBauer
11-29-2018, 04:36 PM
If trump has nothing to hide why is he panicking the way he is? Just look at his tweets from the last four mornings, he feels the noose closing in.



If Trump Didn’t Collude, Why Does He Keep Obstructing Justice?



Earlier this summer, President Trump asked his lawyers about pardoning his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort. Giuliani told the president such a maneuver would be inadvisable and could expose Trump to a possible obstruction of justice charge. “We sat [Trump] down and said you’re not considering these other pardons with anybody involved in the investigation. He said yes, absolutely, I understand,” Giuliani told the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-sought-his-lawyers-advice-weeks-ago-on-possibility-of-pardoning-manafort-but-they-counseled-against-it-giuliani-says/2018/08/23/17dce5c6-a70a-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html?utm_term=.51ddb1eed6bc), “The real concern is whether [Robert] Mueller would turn any pardon into an obstruction charge.”
Yesterday, Trump went ahead and dangled (https://nypost.com/2018/11/28/trump-says-pardon-for-paul-manafort-still-a-possibility/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons) a pardon for Manafort anyway. “It was never discussed,” he told the New York Post, falsely, before continuing, “but I wouldn’t take it off the table. Why would I take it off the table?”
Dangling a pardon like this is an extremely serious offense. It was one of the very crimes (https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1067612714959290368) for which Nixon was going to be impeached. This naturally raises the question of why Trump would obstruct justice so blatantly...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/trumps-obstructing-justice-russia-mueller-guilty.html

mdh
11-29-2018, 04:48 PM
I don't think that's a very nice way to talk about the several people who've pleaded guilty to felonies, and are cooperating. But that's up to you, I guess. Look at all those witches they've bagged, eh? Quite a haul, in record time as such investigations go. Just now, it appears that we're getting closer to the obstruction and collusion elements of the investigation's results. That follows the path that many (both here, and the professional commentators) anticipated: tie up the smaller fish on lesser charges, and use the information they provide to build the more serious case against the bigger fish. It's how organized crime investigations typically work, so we're told.

Really now, maybe you could cite one of those organized crime investigations where the prosecutor convicted his star witness of lying before he used him as a witness in a trial. That would be somewhat self defeating. The truth is, a prosecutor would avoid a deception conviction, and go for a conspiracy conviction, where the witness allocutes to the crime of conspiracy, detailing those involved, and their actions, for some sentence relief. Convicting them of lying renders them worthless as a witness.

TomF
11-29-2018, 05:11 PM
It would seem, mdh, that every former prosecutor or law professor talking head on several networks, whether a Trump surrogate or a Trump critic, disagrees with you about typical process. Convicting them of lying does reduce their value as witnesses, but is, according to all those retired prosecutors making a dime on TV panels, routine.

Osborne Russell
11-29-2018, 06:17 PM
There are two separate issues: potential violations of US campaign laws and the validity of the election. Everyone should be very careful to not assume otherwise.

There are possible international issues.

Osborne Russell
11-29-2018, 06:19 PM
You should ask Poroshenko......so far it seems foreign "management" in elections is no big deal. If you want secure elections for yourselfs, it smacks of hypocrisy how you interfere with others.

What foreign management of what election do you refer to?

C. Ross
11-29-2018, 06:33 PM
The whole thing is a witch hunt. Michael Cohen and Roger Stone? That's where we are at this point? Roger Stone? Mueller whining to the press that Manafort continues to lie?

Gimme a break.

The whole thing is a crap show to cover for British and Australian malfeasance in cooking up in a fake dossier paid for by Clinton lawyers in order to perpetuate a fraud on the FISA court in obtaining a wiretap order of Trump campaign officials.

It makes Watergate look almost quaint.

Good luck with that.

192 criminal charges
36 people and entities charged
7 people pleaded guilty
3 people sentenced to prison
1 person convicted at trial

I hope Trump follows through on his threat to release materials about the Steele dossier. That’s been discredited repeatedly, and the House Republicans double clutched and failed to release materials the last time around. And what they did release undermined the Trump theory that the “fake dossier” was important to the FISA court which launched the pre-election investigation.

The President knows he’s in trouble. Whatever base he retains will stick with him, but it’s a shrinking base. Disapproval 60%. The GOP has already split with him on the Wall and Saudi Arabia.

Not with a bang bang but a whimper goes our President. He’s doing magnificently.

oznabrag
11-29-2018, 07:10 PM
It would seem, mdh, that every former prosecutor or law professor talking head on several networks, whether a Trump surrogate or a Trump critic, disagrees with you about typical process. Convicting them of lying does reduce their value as witnesses, but is, according to all those retired prosecutors making a dime on TV panels, routine.

Convincing a worm like Cohen that a perjury conviction is better than a Treason conviction is child’s play.

John Smith
11-29-2018, 08:33 PM
No, IMO. There's no provision for a do-over, only for muddling through going forwards.

I believe you are correct, but available solutions would seem less than adequate.

Let us wonder if the Republican senators might reach a point where they can no longer protect him.

John Smith
11-29-2018, 08:36 PM
This is all Russia did only in a particularly narrow, legalstic sense. What they did, and there is already ample evidence, is subject our unwitting general population to a massive persistent textbook program of cold war tactics. An act of war. Not an exercise of their freedom to participate or their freedom of speech.

It is exactly, minus the internet until it was invented, the same program the Soviet KGB and now the Russian FSB have been using in countries in South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

We have been doing some of the same things, in our own fashion, supporting right wing autocrats and suppressing emerging democratic popular movements, in a lot of the same places, and ultimately for the same reasons. In the case of the U.S. foreign policy, we were helping to keep those movements, from 'destablizing' the country. Putting in someone like Saddam Hussein to keep things in control, specifically for the same economic reasons, to keep the cost of peasant labor in third world countries such that we can afford cheap crap in Walmart. In a way, tmrp and Walmart and Putin and the CIA, and the Rex Tillersons and the other pirate oligarchs are all in cahoots.

Russia's 'meddling' in our democratic elections isn't just something that happened and then all of a sudden we have right wing aholes putting tmrp in the White House using social media..

Even when all the smoke and dust of the trmp and R implosion clears, we, the general public and electorate probably won't ever really know, the depth and the expense and the cost of the 'meddling.'

I hate the word 'meddling'. I also hate it when someone says 'tried' or 'attempted' to interfere. "Meddling' sounds minor, and the other sound as if they failed.

I'm aiming more at the campaign conspiring with Russia, and what repercussions that can lead to.

John Smith
11-29-2018, 08:38 PM
Really now, maybe you could cite one of those organized crime investigations where the prosecutor convicted his star witness of lying before he used him as a witness in a trial. That would be somewhat self defeating. The truth is, a prosecutor would avoid a deception conviction, and go for a conspiracy conviction, where the witness allocutes to the crime of conspiracy, detailing those involved, and their actions, for some sentence relief. Convicting them of lying renders them worthless as a witness.

Hard to second guess Mueller without knowing what he knows.

SMARTINSEN
11-29-2018, 08:39 PM
The whole thing is a witch hunt. Michael Cohen and Roger Stone? That's where we are at this point? Roger Stone? Mueller whining to the press that Manafort continues to lie?

Gimme a break.

The whole thing is a crap show to cover for British and Australian malfeasance in cooking up in a fake dossier paid for by Clinton lawyers in order to perpetuate a fraud on the FISA court in obtaining a wiretap order of Trump campaign officials.

It makes Watergate look almost quaint.

You will be just fine, Sky Blue.

John Smith
11-29-2018, 08:41 PM
It would seem, mdh, that every former prosecutor or law professor talking head on several networks, whether a Trump surrogate or a Trump critic, disagrees with you about typical process. Convicting them of lying does reduce their value as witnesses, but is, according to all those retired prosecutors making a dime on TV panels, routine.

We don't know as much as we would like to, but, if we speculate, we could speculate that Mueller knew Manafort was playing both sides and used that to his advantage. Trump may have answered some questions based upon information Manafort provided. Now Mueller has, I suspect, documents that prove both told the same lie.

I'm just trying to figure out if there's any reasonable chance Republicans, if given enough damning evidence, will stop protecting Trump.

John Smith
11-29-2018, 08:42 PM
Good luck with that.

192 criminal charges
36 people and entities charged
7 people pleaded guilty
3 people sentenced to prison
1 person convicted at trial

I hope Trump follows through on his threat to release materials about the Steele dossier. That’s been discredited repeatedly, and the House Republicans double clutched and failed to release materials the last time around. And what they did release undermined the Trump theory that the “fake dossier” was important to the FISA court which launched the pre-election investigation.

The President knows he’s in trouble. Whatever base he retains will stick with him, but it’s a shrinking base. Disapproval 60%. The GOP has already split with him on the Wall and Saudi Arabia.

Not with a bang bang but a whimper goes our President. He’s doing magnificently.

While not all of the dossier has been confirmed, I don't believe any of it has been proven false.

BrianY
11-29-2018, 08:49 PM
This is all Russia did only in a particularly narrow, legalstic sense. What they did, and there is already ample evidence, is subject our unwitting general population to a massive persistent textbook program of cold war tactics. An act of war. Not an exercise of their freedom to participate or their freedom of speech.'

Yes, I agree. The question though is whether such actions are grounds to "void" the election.

Corvida
11-29-2018, 09:44 PM
A president cannot be convicted of a crime until after they have been impeached, unlike a judge or congressman, who could conceivably hold their position while in prison. President and Vice President would be impeached separately, if there were cause to impeach each of them. Impeaching either of them would leave the office of Vice President open to be appointed by whoever was then president, with the approval of the House and Senate. Most likely if they were both in the process of being impeached, an appointment would not pass, and House Speaker would become president. This is the source of the crazy idea that because the speaker does not technically have to be a member of the House, Clinton could be elected to the house, then impeachment of Trump/Pence would make her president. Personally if we're going to go that route to appoint someone, we may as well go full crazy and just appoint Gary Busey until the next election.

Back in reality though, there hasn't been any public evidence that Pence is anything but a theocratic nut job patsy. He'll most likely end up president if Trump is impeached. Also likely leaving us without a Vice President until after the next election, since there is unlikely to be anyone on the planet that both parties could agree to the appointment of.

oznabrag
11-29-2018, 10:34 PM
January 3.

oznabrag
11-29-2018, 10:37 PM
You will be just fine, Sky Blue.
I love you, Steve!

I just laughed out loud, and kept laughing.

Sky Blue
11-29-2018, 10:43 PM
Good luck with that.

192 criminal charges
36 people and entities charged
7 people pleaded guilty
3 people sentenced to prison
1 person convicted at trial

I hope Trump follows through on his threat to release materials about the Steele dossier. That’s been discredited repeatedly, and the House Republicans double clutched and failed to release materials the last time around. And what they did release undermined the Trump theory that the “fake dossier” was important to the FISA court which launched the pre-election investigation.

The President knows he’s in trouble. Whatever base he retains will stick with him, but it’s a shrinking base. Disapproval 60%. The GOP has already split with him on the Wall and Saudi Arabia.

Not with a bang bang but a whimper goes our President. He’s doing magnificently.

There's nothing about collusion or conspiracy with the Russians to swing the election to Trump.

There are crimes unrelated to Trump and his campaign, and there are lying offenses having occurred after the Special Counsel started an investigation.

The fact that Mueller is focusing on lying offenses by bit players and low level operatives shows that Mueller had very little to start with and not much now.

We're more than 2 years into this and nothing indicating collusion has been disclosed. Mueller doesn't have anything on Trump.

Sky Blue
11-29-2018, 11:00 PM
The other piece is that there still is no disclosure of any evidence justifying the appointment of a special counsel in the first place.

All charges and convictions that we're aware of could have been investigated and prosecuted by the DoJ with its normal personnel.

Where is the predicate crime justifying a special counsel?

Canoeyawl
11-30-2018, 12:07 AM
The fact that Mueller is focusing on lying offenses by bit players and low level operatives shows that Mueller had very little to start with and not much now.

The opening gambit is often a pawn

Yeadon
11-30-2018, 12:08 AM
Itmfa

mdh
11-30-2018, 02:27 AM
Where is the predicate crime justifying a special counsel?

That would be Uranium One.

John Smith
11-30-2018, 08:57 AM
A president cannot be convicted of a crime until after they have been impeached, unlike a judge or congressman, who could conceivably hold their position while in prison. President and Vice President would be impeached separately, if there were cause to impeach each of them. Impeaching either of them would leave the office of Vice President open to be appointed by whoever was then president, with the approval of the House and Senate. Most likely if they were both in the process of being impeached, an appointment would not pass, and House Speaker would become president. This is the source of the crazy idea that because the speaker does not technically have to be a member of the House, Clinton could be elected to the house, then impeachment of Trump/Pence would make her president. Personally if we're going to go that route to appoint someone, we may as well go full crazy and just appoint Gary Busey until the next election.

Back in reality though, there hasn't been any public evidence that Pence is anything but a theocratic nut job patsy. He'll most likely end up president if Trump is impeached. Also likely leaving us without a Vice President until after the next election, since there is unlikely to be anyone on the planet that both parties could agree to the appointment of.

BUT Pence got elected with Trump and he ought not benefit from illegal actions taken by the campaign. I would think

John Smith
11-30-2018, 08:59 AM
There's nothing about collusion or conspiracy with the Russians to swing the election to Trump.

There are crimes unrelated to Trump and his campaign, and there are lying offenses having occurred after the Special Counsel started an investigation.

The fact that Mueller is focusing on lying offenses by bit players and low level operatives shows that Mueller had very little to start with and not much now.

We're more than 2 years into this and nothing indicating collusion has been disclosed. Mueller doesn't have anything on Trump.

It's not all out yet. For the purpose of this thread, let's assume it is proven that the Trump campaign illegally conspired with Russia.

C. Ross
11-30-2018, 09:08 AM
There's nothing about collusion or conspiracy with the Russians to swing the election to Trump.

There are crimes unrelated to Trump and his campaign, and there are lying offenses having occurred after the Special Counsel started an investigation.

The fact that Mueller is focusing on lying offenses by bit players and low level operatives shows that Mueller had very little to start with and not much now.

We're more than 2 years into this and nothing indicating collusion has been disclosed. Mueller doesn't have anything on Trump.

Its been 18 months. Iran Contra and Whitewater took 6 years.

It’s not a surprise that Mueller is working from the bottom up.

And it’s not a surprise that Mueller would start with subsidiary issues before taking on Russia. He is clearly focusing now on collusion and obstruction of justice.

Jim Mahan
11-30-2018, 09:25 AM
The 'unwinding' shouldn't be attempted as a do-over. It should be accomlished, after the official public censure via the House and the Fourth Estate, by electing the Democrats who will do essentially what the trmpidotevilgit attempted re Mr. Obama's accomplishments.

The most important thing is for the country to denounce tmrpism and adhere to the democractic, liberal ideals upon which the country was supposed to have been founded.

The most important thing to do to accomplish that is to get the money away from the whores in Congress and the so-called conservative pirates.

Part of that is to husband the popular pushback of the tmrpist anti-fact, anti-truth, anti-science, anti-poor, brown, etc. until America looks and sounds like what we thought it was, growing up. And that does NOT mean 'make it rich and white and good shareholder value again.'

trmp, and his enablers are not American; not patriotic, not making America great again. What they are doing is providing the ultimate foil to get our Democracy back on track.

Osborne Russell
11-30-2018, 12:43 PM
The other piece is that there still is no disclosure of any evidence justifying the appointment of a special counsel in the first place.

Why should there be?


All charges and convictions that we're aware of could have been investigated and prosecuted by the DoJ with its normal personnel.

Who, if they had "disclosed" the progress of their investigation, would have been doing what the Radical Right pretends to be so mad at Comey for doing.


Where is the predicate crime justifying a special counsel?

Conspiracy, unregistered foreign agents and campaign finance.

John Smith
11-30-2018, 12:48 PM
The 'unwinding' shouldn't be attempted as a do-over. It should be accomlished, after the official public censure via the House and the Fourth Estate, by electing the Democrats who will do essentially what the trmpidotevilgit attempted re Mr. Obama's accomplishments.

The most important thing is for the country to denounce tmrpism and adhere to the democractic, liberal ideals upon which the country was supposed to have been founded.

The most important thing to do to accomplish that is to get the money away from the whores in Congress and the so-called conservative pirates.

Part of that is to husband the popular pushback of the tmrpist anti-fact, anti-truth, anti-science, anti-poor, brown, etc. until America looks and sounds like what we thought it was, growing up. And that does NOT mean 'make it rich and white and good shareholder value again.'

trmp, and his enablers are not American; not patriotic, not making America great again. What they are doing is providing the ultimate foil to get our Democracy back on track.

And we will be stuck with all the judges/justices he put in place.

Jim Mahan
11-30-2018, 01:35 PM
I would like to see a poll asking such a question as, 'As a voter, as a concerned citizen, rule of law etc., do you think an impeached president's appointees should be unseated?'

My personal opinion is that it would be idiocy to unseat a previously appointed judge or justice, lifetime or not, except in such a case of malfeasance as this. The election was fraudulent. Impeachment grounds should be treason as per the Constitution for the personal aggrandizement specifically mentioned therein, among other things equally felonious.

The whole administration, his cabinet, are his picks and no doubt chosen by the likes of the Mercers and the Kochs. The ramifications of that go way way past the surface-level partisan stuff. His cabinet were chosen specifically to not only undo what the previous president did in office. Equally important is the fact that they were also chosen to more efficiently feed the big business welfare program and the MIC. All the social progress in the form of federal agencies for welfare and seniors and vets, the environment, education, etc will be undone, legally, in order to starve the middle class into poverty. Good shareholder value. Capitalism. The same thing that drove slavery. And it's actually the same damn thing that is behind or underlying almost all of society's ills in America. Not hyperbole. Think about the weird numbers in various categories that apply, like childhood poverty and hunger. It should be the lowest in the wealthiest nation, the free-est nation. It isn't. Most money spent on 'defense.' Most expensive health care. Most gun violence. Most people in prison.

So however we get rid of the whores that control the legislation and now administer the government, is how we get our real America back, the one we were told we were fighting for back in the day.

The blame doesn't belong exclusively to the rich. We are the ones buying their stuff and letting them do it to us. Hoist on our own national petard.

Power to the People. Impeach trmp. Set up a guillotine (figuratively; I wouldn't advocate the actual beheading of trmp and his cohort, as satisfying as it sounds.)

If not now, when? Sometime in January.

Jim Mahan
11-30-2018, 01:37 PM
I gotta go take a breather.

TomF
11-30-2018, 01:42 PM
Problem is, unless the Senate elections are proved to have also been unduly influenced by foreign interference ... leading to impeachments from that chamber ... then any appointees they confirmed were duly confirmed. They may be ratbags nominated to their prospective positions by a criminal and impeached POTUS, but if the Senate confirmed the nominations according to due process ... and the Senators themselves were elected according to due process ...

john welsford
11-30-2018, 04:41 PM
There are two separate issues: potential violations of US campaign laws and the validity of the election. Everyone should be very careful to not assume otherwise.

If Trump is found to have violated campaign laws, that does not invalidate the election. It opens him and his campaign up to legal penalties (fines, jail time) but in no way negates the validity of the votes that were cast for him or the election process. So it could turn out that he is convicted of a crime but still remains president. Congress would have to impeach him to remove him from office, which they might well do if he's convicted.

Russia's involvement in the election also doesn't necessarily invalidate the election result although it is potentially a violation of US campaign law. If all Russia did was to essentially run an advocacy campaign in an attempt to sway voters to support a particular candidate, that also does not in any way invalidate the votes or the election. If, on the other hand, Russia directly tampered with voting machines, manipulated vote counts or otherwise corrupted the voting process, that would be reason to invalidate the election result.

Silly question maybe, but if Trump ends up doing time, and that conviction doesn't invalidate the election. Does that mean that he is still able to do presidential work from "inside"?
I assume that the "vice" would take over while he's "in".

John Welsford

john welsford
11-30-2018, 04:42 PM
I don't think that's a very nice way to talk about the several people who've pleaded guilty to felonies, and are cooperating. But that's up to you, I guess. Look at all those witches they've bagged, eh? Quite a haul, in record time as such investigations go. Just now, it appears that we're getting closer to the obstruction and collusion elements of the investigation's results. That follows the path that many (both here, and the professional commentators) anticipated: tie up the smaller fish on lesser charges, and use the information they provide to build the more serious case against the bigger fish. It's how organized crime investigations typically work, so we're told.

Mueller is going to have to install a broomstick rack outside his office door.

John Welsford

oznabrag
11-30-2018, 04:49 PM
Problem is, unless the Senate elections are proved to have also been unduly influenced by foreign interference ... leading to impeachments from that chamber ... then any appointees they confirmed were duly confirmed. They may be ratbags nominated to their prospective positions by a criminal and impeached POTUS, but if the Senate confirmed the nominations according to due process ... and the Senators themselves were elected according to due process ...

Perhaps. I think it should be obvious that the entire ‘Republicans’ Party is a corrupt organization.

Sky Blue
11-30-2018, 04:51 PM
If we are to Judge Mueller it must be on the basis of his specific remit, and on that basis, the investigation has been a failure. I don't think he has anything meaningful on Trump. The Report will be scathing and filled with sleazy allegations from admitted liars and impeachment hearings will begin, but in the end it will all fizzle.

I think Pelosi knows this which is why she's always tamped down the enthusiasm for impeachment. She knows it will energize Republicans and rally the party's voters at a time when they might otherwise be somewhat demoralized. I hope they try it anyway. It will be a gift to Trump.

Sky Blue
11-30-2018, 05:06 PM
What is the crime Trump is alleged to have committed that justifies a Special Counsel investigation and where is the evidence for it?

oznabrag
11-30-2018, 05:11 PM
What is the crime Trump is alleged to have committed that justifies a Special Counsel investigation and where is the evidence for it?

Pore li’l feller.

You’re going to be fine, SB.

C. Ross
11-30-2018, 05:27 PM
What is the crime Trump is alleged to have committed that justifies a Special Counsel investigation and where is the evidence for it?

The Special Counsel was appointed to protect American interests given the overwhelming evidence that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. The on-going investigation does not hinge on whether Candidate or President Trump committed a crime. But then, you know that. Asking about the "alleged crime" is a very Trumpian dodge, which you executed pretty well!

The original inquiry was triggered by the Director of National Intelligence's findings. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

FBI Director Comey led the inquiry. The FBI is the agency charged with domestic counter-intelligence and terrorism. Former national security advisor Flynn was fired, and then indicted and plead guilty to perjury charges to avoid prosecution on his role in coordinating with the Russians. Trump fired Comey, saying it was because of "the Russia thing."

Department of Justice appointed a special counsel because of what they clearly saw as probable cause.

Nothing here to see? Just ignore it because, well, MAGA? Thank God there were patriots in the Department of Justice.

paulf
11-30-2018, 05:34 PM
What is the crime Trump is alleged to have committed that justifies a Special Counsel investigation and where is the evidence for it?

I think the investigation is to determine if our election system was wrongly manipulated by a foreign adversary. Trump and his campaign just keep floating to the top.

It will be a good thing if we take a good LOOOONG look into this and crush anyone involved, regardless of who.


LOCK THEM UP! LOCK THEM UP! get a rope! Hang em!

Sky Blue
11-30-2018, 05:50 PM
overwhelming evidence

Of what? Manafort doing something a decade ago? Trump paying hush money to porn stars?

So far, this thing is a bust. The average American would be hard pressed to articulate precisely what the Russians did despite the claim that there is "overwhelming evidence that they did something.

C. Ross
11-30-2018, 06:24 PM
Of what? Manafort doing something a decade ago? Trump paying hush money to porn stars?

So far, this thing is a bust. The average American would be hard pressed to articulate precisely what the Russians did despite the claim that there is "overwhelming evidence that they did something.

Do you not believe that they interfered in our election?

Flynn's firing was inappropriate?

You'll be fine. Trump is pure as driven snow. Everyone will see that, right?

oznabrag
11-30-2018, 06:28 PM
Of what? Manafort doing something a decade ago? Trump paying hush money to porn stars?

So far, this thing is a bust. The average American would be hard pressed to articulate precisely what the Russians did despite the claim that there is "overwhelming evidence that they did something.

The average American would be hard pressed to articulate precisely how gravity works, yet it does so whether they understand it or not.

The reason you squirm so is that you know that your hero, Trump, is a career criminal and that’s why you love him so.

That’s why ALL ‘Republicans ‘ love Trump.

He’s THEIR little criminal, and he commits the crimes they want to see committed and the crimes they wish they themselves could commit.

Art Haberland
11-30-2018, 07:18 PM
The average American would be hard pressed to articulate precisely how gravity works, yet it does so whether they understand it or not.

The reason you squirm so is that you know that your hero, Trump, is a career criminal and that’s why you love him so.

That’s why ALL ‘Republicans ‘ love Trump.

He’s THEIR little criminal, and he commits the crimes they want to see committed and the crimes they wish they themselves could commit.

Maybe that is why they see him as their "blue collar" presudent?

Corvida
11-30-2018, 07:38 PM
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Sky, there's the order to appoint the special council, and it helpfully cites all of the relevant laws for the authority and reason for the appointment. There is no requirement for a crime to be committed, just a factual statement to be investigated. The only time a crime is needed is for indictment, which the investigator does not decide, the grand jury does.

This may be surprising to some, but investigators are hired to investigate. That doesn't mean there is already evidence for a conviction, it doesn't mean anyone has been found guilty, it doesn't mean anyone is going to jail, or that there is distinct evidence of a crime. All of that might happen in the course of an investigation, but has no bearing on the actual creation or decision to investigate.

And John Welsford, no, there will never be a president lawfully placed in jail while still in office. Even if they can't directly pardon themselves, the process of convicting them requires impeachment to carry out the trial.

Osborne Russell
11-30-2018, 08:07 PM
Of what? Manafort doing something a decade ago? Trump paying hush money to porn stars?

So far, this thing is a bust. The average American would be hard pressed to articulate precisely what the Russians did despite the claim that there is "overwhelming evidence that they did something.

The average American is not the audience. Remember? Comey? Progress of an ongoing investigation? He was fired for it.

StevenBauer
11-30-2018, 10:52 PM
Ol’ Bluey is starting to sound almost as desperate as trump. Relax, SB. This won’t be over for quite a while. I don’t see any need to rush things, do you?

john l
11-30-2018, 11:05 PM
President Pelosi?

john l
11-30-2018, 11:07 PM
Individual 1 2 B Defendent 1

Corvida
11-30-2018, 11:48 PM
President Pelosi?

Technically possible, but very unlikely. The Dems are trying to play extreme lip service to accountability, without actually doing anything. That's why the HR 1 bill is all about accountability and ethics. There's zero chance of it passing, and they get to play like they're actually doing something, without actually starting an impeachment investigation. If they are politically forced by Mueller into starting an impeachment, they'll do their best to avoid taking down Pence, while constantly criticizing him for running with a criminal.

Expect to hear all about government transparency, anti-corruption laws, and efforts, for the next two years. And of course if the Dems take complete control in 2020, expect all of that to be instantly erased from the party platform. Or maybe they'll just change the font color and hand it to the GoP for a few years. Kind of like how the pass the deficit hawk position back and forth to whoever can do nothing about it.

Sky Blue
11-30-2018, 11:57 PM
no predicate crime or evidence is necessary to appoint a special counsel

So it's like, you know, a witch hunt?:rolleyes:

Art Haberland
12-01-2018, 12:57 AM
You are going to get dizzy if you keep the spin up, Bluey

StevenBauer
12-01-2018, 04:03 AM
So it's like, you know, a witch hunt?:rolleyes:


https://i.redd.it/pjg8it33ik121.jpg

John Smith
12-01-2018, 04:11 AM
If we are to Judge Mueller it must be on the basis of his specific remit, and on that basis, the investigation has been a failure. I don't think he has anything meaningful on Trump. The Report will be scathing and filled with sleazy allegations from admitted liars and impeachment hearings will begin, but in the end it will all fizzle.

I think Pelosi knows this which is why she's always tamped down the enthusiasm for impeachment. She knows it will energize Republicans and rally the party's voters at a time when they might otherwise be somewhat demoralized. I hope they try it anyway. It will be a gift to Trump.

I think you underestimate Mueller. He's not done yet. Pelosi is smart enough not to impeach if she knows there aren't the votes in the senate.

Mueller's not done yet.

John Smith
12-01-2018, 04:13 AM
What is the crime Trump is alleged to have committed that justifies a Special Counsel investigation and where is the evidence for it?

Conspiracy with a foreign power is the crime. Obstruction of Justice is also a crime, which is what brought Nixon down

John Smith
12-01-2018, 04:14 AM
Of what? Manafort doing something a decade ago? Trump paying hush money to porn stars?

So far, this thing is a bust. The average American would be hard pressed to articulate precisely what the Russians did despite the claim that there is "overwhelming evidence that they did something.

Patience. Trump is trying awfully hard to hide a non crime.

John Smith
12-01-2018, 04:17 AM
So it's like, you know, a witch hunt?:rolleyes:

It's caught a significant number of witches, both foreign and domestic.

Lying to congress is a crime. A president allowing his people to lie to congress is also a crime.

Patience.

I wish you'd stop dodging the question. IF, THAT'S IF, evidence comes forward that absolutely proves the Trump campaign conspired with Russia (maybe other countries), what do YOU believe should happen.

A proper response is not that such evidence won't come. It may not. My question pertains to IF it does come.

Jim Mahan
12-01-2018, 08:05 AM
A president allowing his people to lie to congress is also a crime.



A president lying to support his lying sycophants as they lie to congress, all of which is under oath, is also a crime.

BTW, the office of the President of the United States is a twenty-four-seven thing for four years; everything he says about anything in such matters, even during a press conference or on his walk to the helicopter, is under oath. The same as an enlisted GI. You don't get to swear fealty on penalty of treason to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, and then go home, put on a hood and rally for nazis.

I don't know why after what the world went through in the European theater of war in the forties—after HItler and the holocaust—we don't have an actual federal law specifically outlawing nazis and supremacists of any stripe. Advocating for classes of people to be not included as citizens by way of lynching them is definitely anti-American and anti-Democracy, just as much as committing murder on an individual basis, or being the Don of an organized crime family, especially with ties to the same in Russia.

No nazis. No racists in public office. It's sad that that isn't automatically the default in every decent citizen's mind.

John Smith
12-01-2018, 10:24 AM
A president lying to support his lying sycophants as they lie to congress, all of which is under oath, is also a crime.

BTW, the office of the President of the United States is a twenty-four-seven thing for four years; everything he says about anything in such matters, even during a press conference or on his walk to the helicopter, is under oath. The same as an enlisted GI. You don't get to swear fealty on penalty of treason to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, and then go home, put on a hood and rally for nazis.

I don't know why after what the world went through in the European theater of war in the forties—after HItler and the holocaust—we don't have an actual federal law specifically outlawing nazis and supremacists of any stripe. Advocating for classes of people to be not included as citizens by way of lynching them is definitely anti-American and anti-Democracy, just as much as committing murder on an individual basis, or being the Don of an organized crime family, especially with ties to the same in Russia.

No nazis. No racists in public office. It's sad that that isn't automatically the default in every decent citizen's mind.

I wish that were true. I believe all politicians should be under oath whenever they speak, but that seems not to be the case. Sadly, we have accepted being lied to for political gain as free speech. I feel quite lonely in thinking it's fraud.

I think it would be extremely interesting, if someone would put forth legislation REQUIRING politicians, their ads, their spokespeople, etc. to get matter of fact correct, who would stand on the floor of the house or senate and argue for the right to lie to voters.

I also believe if we could get the lies out, money would be less important.

McMike
12-01-2018, 01:22 PM
I wish that were true. I believe all politicians should be under oath whenever they speak, but that seems not to be the case. Sadly, we have accepted being lied to for political gain as free speech. I feel quite lonely in thinking it's fraud.

I think it would be extremely interesting, if someone would put forth legislation REQUIRING politicians, their ads, their spokespeople, etc. to get matter of fact correct, who would stand on the floor of the house or senate and argue for the right to lie to voters.

I also believe if we could get the lies out, money would be less important.

I wholeheartedly agree with this John. Interesting that not one single politician would ever suggest such a law. Imagine the difference.

John Smith
12-01-2018, 02:27 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with this John. Interesting that not one single politician would ever suggest such a law. Imagine the difference.

I'd love to see the floor debates. People often misspeak, but they also correct themselves. I have no doubt Newt Gingrich KNOWS the shoe bomber was a British citizen, but he had a point to make and he had to tell his audience the shoe bomber was an American citizen to make it. Fortunately, Jon Stewart corrected him.

I'm all for voters forming opinions that differ from other voters, but it seems to me unless they are based on actual facts, it's like building a sand castle: when the tide comes in, it collapses.

Just sent this to my two senators:
The first amendment protects offensive speech: opinions someone else may not like. It does not protect fraud, libel, slander, or inciting a riot or violence.

I see no difference between a politician misrepresenting his own voting record and a used car lot turning back the odometer.

Please introduce a bill REQUIRING politicians, their spokespeople, their ads, etc. to get matters of fact correct. Instead of the ad ending with, "I'm (insert candidate's name) and I approve this message" it should say, "....and I certify this message to be factually accurate.

It would be quite interesting to see who stands on the floors of congress and argues for the right to lie to voters.

BrianY
12-01-2018, 04:00 PM
Silly question maybe, but if Trump ends up doing time, and that conviction doesn't invalidate the election. Does that mean that he is still able to do presidential work from "inside"?
I assume that the "vice" would take over while he's "in".

John Welsford

The question of whether a sitting president can be tried and convicted of a crime is not settled. Many experts are of the opinion that he cannot be, but others disagree. But the truth is that no one knows for sure because there is no precedent to follow and if that situation should ever arise, it would have to be settled by the Supreme Court.

Then there's the relevant question of whether a president could pardon himself. Again, experts disagree, there's no precedent and the Supreme Court would have to decided on it.

There are precedents at lower levels of government. For example, Boston Mayor James Michael Curly famously served jail time for part of one of his terms as mayor and he continued to run the city from his cell. Of course, that was in a different time (early - mid 20th century) and under very different political circumstances. I don;t see how the congress could avoid impeachment if the president was charged with a crime, but then I didn't see how Trump could be elected in the first place so it might be possible. Perhaps the Republican would refuse to impeach while the court was deciding the the whole question. Given their mendacity, that wouldn't surprise me.

In other words, no one really knows.

Jim Mahan
12-01-2018, 04:24 PM
The question of whether a sitting president can be tried and convicted of a crime is not settled. Many experts are of the opinion that he cannot be, but others disagree.

But why would any citizen be okay with having a criminal in the office of the president? How completely stupid that must look to everyone but Americans.

'Hello, sorry, your Majesty, the president can't be at the summit because he's still in Leavenworth for a while longer.'

Oh, yeah. The base. Stupid, and proudly arrogant about it, too.

John Smith
12-02-2018, 06:57 AM
The question of whether a sitting president can be tried and convicted of a crime is not settled. Many experts are of the opinion that he cannot be, but others disagree. But the truth is that no one knows for sure because there is no precedent to follow and if that situation should ever arise, it would have to be settled by the Supreme Court.

Then there's the relevant question of whether a president could pardon himself. Again, experts disagree, there's no precedent and the Supreme Court would have to decided on it.

There are precedents at lower levels of government. For example, Boston Mayor James Michael Curly famously served jail time for part of one of his terms as mayor and he continued to run the city from his cell. Of course, that was in a different time (early - mid 20th century) and under very different political circumstances. I don;t see how the congress could avoid impeachment if the president was charged with a crime, but then I didn't see how Trump could be elected in the first place so it might be possible. Perhaps the Republican would refuse to impeach while the court was deciding the the whole question. Given their mendacity, that wouldn't surprise me.

In other words, no one really knows.

Most of the discussion I've heard/read over the years seem to pertain to crimes committed while in office. I cannot recall any about crimes committed in order to get into office.

We are in uncharted water. Unless I'm missing something, and that would not be a first, the impeachment thing is for stuff the president does as president. We are looking at an election that was influenced by the campaign conspiring with a foreign power.

I'm not sure the constitution references this type of thing.

Corvida
12-02-2018, 11:09 AM
So it's like, you know, a witch hunt?:rolleyes:

A major US political party was hacked by a hostile government, and their primary opponent asked the hostile government for political assistance on national TV. Do you really need a bigger reason to investigate?

SMARTINSEN
12-02-2018, 11:35 AM
The question of whether a sitting president can be tried and convicted of a crime is not settled. Many experts are of the opinion that he cannot be, but others disagree. But the truth is that no one knows for sure because there is no precedent to follow and if that situation should ever arise, it would have to be settled by the Supreme Court.



The point is somewhat moot, as it is the policy of the DOJ to not indict the president, and I cannot see that this changes given the present administration and the acting AG.

Jim Mahan
12-02-2018, 11:50 AM
Is the Department of Justice not a part of the administrative branch, and wouldn't the Congress* and the Supreme Court over-ride the DoJ choice in lieu of that of the People?

*Not this congress, but theoretically.

John Smith
12-02-2018, 12:52 PM
It's caught a significant number of witches, both foreign and domestic.

Lying to congress is a crime. A president allowing his people to lie to congress is also a crime.

Patience.

I wish you'd stop dodging the question. IF, THAT'S IF, evidence comes forward that absolutely proves the Trump campaign conspired with Russia (maybe other countries), what do YOU believe should happen.

A proper response is not that such evidence won't come. It may not. My question pertains to IF it does come.

This was a response to SB, who has ignored it.

SMARTINSEN
12-02-2018, 02:48 PM
Is the Department of Justice not a part of the administrative branch, and wouldn't the Congress* and the Supreme Court over-ride the DoJ choice in lieu of that of the People?

*Not this congress, but theoretically.

Congress has a mechanism for that spelled out for that in the Constituion, and SCOTUS, the Chief Justice, at least, has a role.

LeeG
12-02-2018, 03:18 PM
You should ask Poroshenko......so far it seems foreign "management" in elections is no big deal. If you want secure elections for yourselfs, it smacks of hypocrisy how you interfere with others.

aint it the truth.

skuthorp
12-02-2018, 04:08 PM
I wish that were true. I believe all politicians should be under oath whenever they speak, but that seems not to be the case. Sadly, we have accepted being lied to for political gain as free speech. I feel quite lonely in thinking it's fraud.

I think it would be extremely interesting, if someone would put forth legislation REQUIRING politicians, their ads, their spokespeople, etc. to get matter of fact correct, who would stand on the floor of the house or senate and argue for the right to lie to voters.

I also believe if we could get the lies out, money would be less important.
And that is the nub of the problem. And the SC judiciary here, and in the US were complicit.

S/V Laura Ellen
12-02-2018, 04:25 PM
Mueller might be able to complete his investigation and issue his report if the Trumpists would just stop breaking the law.

LeeG
12-02-2018, 05:05 PM
The average American would be hard pressed to articulate precisely how gravity works, yet it does so whether they understand it or not.

The reason you squirm so is that you know that your hero, Trump, is a career criminal and that’s why you love him so.

That’s why ALL ‘Republicans ‘ love Trump.

He’s THEIR little criminal, and he commits the crimes they want to see committed and the crimes they wish they themselves could commit.

oh that average American

Osborne Russell
12-02-2018, 05:51 PM
The question of whether a sitting president can be tried and convicted of a crime is not settled. Many experts are of the opinion that he cannot be, but others disagree.

GTFOOH. Did the drafters intend executive immunity but forget to put it in? Would the Constitution have been ratified if they had? One of the principal objections was a too-powerful executive.

AndyG
12-02-2018, 06:01 PM
The question of whether a sitting president can be tried and convicted of a crime is not settled. Many experts are of the opinion that he cannot be, but others disagree. But the truth is that no one knows for sure because there is no precedent to follow and if that situation should ever arise, it would have to be settled by the Supreme Court.

No! Surely no question there?

Magna Carta, 1215: even the King is subject to the law. You adopted that bit, surely, in the 1791 Bill of Rights? Please tell me you did?!

Andy

birlinn
12-02-2018, 06:06 PM
No! Surely no question there?

Magna Carta, 1215: even the King is subject to the law. You adopted that bit, surely, in the 1791 Bill of Rights? Please tell me you did?!

Andy

Someone tell Donald.

Osborne Russell
12-03-2018, 11:48 AM
No! Surely no question there?

Magna Carta, 1215: even the King is subject to the law. You adopted that bit, surely, in the 1791 Bill of Rights? Please tell me you did?!

Andy

If that wasn't the take-away from the MC, I'd like to know what was.