[POLITICS] Robert Mueller Testifies before the House

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Pseudonym:
Question for the people who want Trump impeached. What for exactly? There have been accusations of working together with Russia to influence the election, of obstruction of justice and of unduly enriching himself and his companies through the presidency. Which of those do you think are the most credible and worthy of impeachment?

Agema:

Saelune:
Centrists during Lincoln's era were probably saying ending slavery was a bad idea cause it would upset too many people.

I would probably prefer Trump to be tried with a fair chance of conviction by a federal court after he leaves office than escape justice through a failed impeachment (I'm guessing here that double jeopardy applies and impeachment may preclude a later trial). That way justice will be done, the warning will go out for future aspiring presidents, and Trump will be tarred in perpetuity for criminality in high office.

It's not just about throwing mud at Trump for the sake of form - there's a longer term and bigger picture to think about.

Not true, it turns out, or at the most pessimistic legally unclear. https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download

Eacaraxe:

ObsidianJones:
I know the knee jerk answer is "their job", but in reality, what do you expect the Democrats to do when the system of checks and balances are Balanced directly in favor of the Republicans... the very republicans who are very opposed to this very concept?

I dunno...not play election-year politics with an issue the public has been led to believe of existential import for the third year running? Actual support for impeachment continues to drop the longer this stretches on, and if Democrats try to keep their kick-the-can nonsense up, they're guaranteed to face severe repercussions in 2020...and that's an election Democrats absolutely, positively, under no circumstances can not afford to fuck up any worse than they already have.

"Their job" is the knee jerk answer, because it's the right one. Either the Trump administration is an existential threat to the country, or it isn't. If it is, then it's the Democrats moral, ethical, and professional imperative to do anything in their power to end it, or at least do their part as decisively as possible. If it isn't, well, Congressional Democrats are fucking liars. Like it or not, this is what they campaigned on in 2018, and it's up to them to fulfill campaign promises, as opposed to dither around pretending we're in the middle of a Constitutional crisis. It's time for Democrats to put their money where their mouth is, and stop making excuses.

I guarantee you, Republican voters won't be forgetting this any time soon, and left to their own devices Republican candidates will turn 2020 into a referendum on Democratic conduct. I can only speak for myself, but if Democrats don't vote to impeach, come 2020 I'll abstain or vote third party before I cast a single Democratic vote.

This is peak "blame Republicans for Democrats not doing their jobs".

They shouldn't impeach because they said they would or because they are the oppositions party. A member of congress should impeach because they think it is plausible the president committed relevant crimes, regardless of party affiliation or the like. I will grant you that those who ran on impeachment and who want to wait now have been dishonest, and should be held to account for that by their constituents come 2020.

I want him to be impeached because I want a government that works. I want him to be impeached because impeachment is supposed to stop Trump. I want Trump to get impeached because I want to know that the justice system is on the side of justice.

'But Republicans will just stop it and that will exonerate him', No, no it wont. It will not exonerate Trump, it will implicate the entire Republican party. But then the proper action after that would be to remove all those Republicans from office, not by voting, but by taking them out in handcuffs.

But that requires Democrats and 'centrists' who don't support Trump to work together, so that wont happen. It requires people to care, and most people don't care.

I want to Impeach Trump because I am drowning in cynicism and I need a life preserver.

Agema:
Obviously, many of them appreciate these rants because they do believe it's true...They just like that someone is saying it.

For my part, this is what it's about. I grew up living between southern Indiana, rebirth-place of the Klan and Overt Racism HQ of the North, and northern Alabama. Needless to say, I grew up in and around a whole lot of racism growing up; hell, I had family in the Klan (they're all dead now). Let me try to explain to you what people like me mean, when we grouch about political correctness.

First things first, you have to understand northerner, and now coastie, liberals like to pretend they're above racism. They can't be racist, because other people are more overtly racist; their area can't be racist, because other areas are more overtly racist; they were Union states, after all by God, and by comparison they're shining exemplars of racial equity because clearly, they don't say or do racist things. And if -- even if -- they might possibly be construed in some way to hold maybe an inconvenient thought about certain minority groups, their flavor of racism is still somehow superior.

Yeah...not so much. Best case scenario, they just learned to be more covert about it and are completely unaware of how bad off they actually are, and even if they have an inkling it manifests itself in overcompensation absent introspection.

It's in this context, I'd like to introduce the notion of "the tone". That's what I call it anyways. Grow up around enough overt and casual racists, you learn it and how to listen for it. It'd hard to quantify or qualify, you just know it when you hear it -- maybe it's a brief moment of hesitation before saying a given word, a certain emphasis on a syllable, a tonal shift at the start or end of a word or phrase, a slight tilt of the head when saying it, shift to a nasal tone, or an unusually exhaling sound as if you're spitting the word out. What having "the tone" means, is regardless of what just came out of your mouth, you hold the people you're talking about in some form of contempt or sense of superiority.

You can call a black person any euphemism you like out of any book, however polite or unassuming you may think it is, but if I hear "the tone" you may as well have just said the N-word. Liberals like to think they're so fuckin' smart for cracking "dog whistles", but the reality is that's just the tip of the iceberg and an entire world of expressing bigotry in its panoply of forms and depths, through means verbal and non-verbal, awaits the eyes and ears of a trained connoisseur of hate.

So, these northern and coastie liberals? They don't know how to listen for "the tone". They don't seem to know what "the tone" is, or even that it exists. It should come as no surprise at this point, that a hell of a lot more than I'm comfortable with, when I hear northern and coastie liberals talk about certain minority groups, I hear "the tone".

Once you learn to hear that shit, and start hearing that shit, you can't unhear it. You can't deny it. And it's absolutely maddening.

I can only speak for myself, but I get so sick and tired of hearing "the tone" out of liberals' mouths I could puke. Sometimes, I want to scream at these people to cut the shit and just say the N-word, because it's not what they're saying but it's clearly what they mean. Then, I could at least respect the honesty even if I deplore the belief.

That's what "political correctness" is about. Today's slurs are yesterday's preferred argot. Today's preferred argot is tomorrow's slur. Hell, we're even coming full circle in some ways with today's preferred argot being yesterday's slurs. It's rhetorical wheel-spinning to push denialism and preclude genuine introspection, a thick-but-completely-transparent facade of otherness and superiority, the proverbial lipstick on a pig. Because people delude themselves into thinking they can solve for the underlying hate, by controlling how people speak. And there are some out there who damn well know of "the tone", but are perfectly content with it so long as they can exercise power over those who speak with it, by controlling their language.

So, in that light, there's a certain twisted catharsis that happens when morons like Trump pop off at the mouth and say dumb racist shit. There's no pretense, and there's no "tone". Because for once, you can call a racist a racist, without being called a racist.

These scum are sick beyond belief.

Trump's latest Hannity interview shows how Fox News's Russia coverage is disconnected from reality

They want you to believe Clinton colluded with Russia to defeat herself.
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/26/8931552/trump-hannity-interview-mueller-russia-collusion

Kwak:
These scum are sick beyond belief.

I don't buy the FNC interpretation of events, but on the other hand there are facts and questions present there Democrats and liberal-slanted news do themselves no favors denying, and/or trying to downplay.

The origins of the Steele dossier were originally found in Republican anti-Trump oppo for the primaries. Once Trump became the presumptive nominee, the DNC through Perkins Coie picked up the tab allowing Fusion to continue the work and hire Steele. Don't forget.

Meanwhile, Fusion GPS was materially involved with Prevezon, Veselnitskaya did have contact with and represented Fusion, and Fusion did run oppo on noteworthy persons associated with Hermitage including Browder. This partnership predated the 2016 election and did continue throughout.

Meanwhile, we also know the Russian goal, such as it was, was not only to boost Trump but to sew chaos in the election in general, particularly by fomenting division inside the Democratic party. Thus, the fake Bernie, BLM, and other social justice-oriented groups.

Do I believe this points to Democratic collusion with Russia? No. However, I do believe Steele and Fusion GPS were key vectors for Russian interference (being fed misinformation), and the DNC were unwitting partners by continuing to fund the firm through Perkins Coie.

The story, on the other hand, in my opinion takes a rather insidious turn on the part of the DNC, when Perkins Coie was found to be collaborating with the FBI and McCabe used discretionary funds to purchase the Steele dossier. McCabe was clearly conflicted and should have recused himself from the email and Russia investigation, and frankly, the FBI's ruling he was not conflicted utterly fails the smell test.

ObsidianJones:

Congressman Ted Lieu, elicited a three-word bombshell. "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" That is correct," Mueller said.

He walked that back: View at about 1:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzqzr1O-E7E

Another thing:
Suppose Trump fired Comey because Comey was investigating him. It matters why that bothered him and one has to prove it. If it was because he was afraid Comey would find criminal collusion with Russia, that is obstruction. But if there was no criminal collusion involved, he would not have to obstruct Comey for that reason. Ultimately, I thought there were no criminal allegations in the report as after years of unobstructed investigation, they do not have convincing evidence of it having happened.

Gorfias:

Suppose Trump fired Comey because Comey was investigating him. It matters why that bothered him and one has to prove it. If it was because he was afraid Comey would find criminal collusion with Russia, that is obstruction. But if there was no criminal collusion involved, he would not have to obstruct Comey for that reason. Ultimately, I thought there were no criminal allegations in the report as after years of unobstructed investigation, they do not have convincing evidence of it having happened.

This is circular reasoning. You've concluded that there was no criminality because the investigation was unobstructed, but also that it isn't obstruction if there is no criminality.

This aside from the fact that the investigation found numerous instances of interference and evidence of obstruction-- just not enough to bring indictment against Trump himself.

Silvanus:

Gorfias:

Suppose Trump fired Comey because Comey was investigating him. It matters why that bothered him and one has to prove it. If it was because he was afraid Comey would find criminal collusion with Russia, that is obstruction. But if there was no criminal collusion involved, he would not have to obstruct Comey for that reason. Ultimately, I thought there were no criminal allegations in the report as after years of unobstructed investigation, they do not have convincing evidence of it having happened.

This is circular reasoning. You've concluded that there was no criminality because the investigation was unobstructed, but also that it isn't obstruction if there is no criminality.

This aside from the fact that the investigation found numerous instances of interference and evidence of obstruction-- just not enough to bring indictment against Trump himself.

I'm thinking of Scooter Libby. He really WAS afraid that truthful answers would reveal what the investigators were looking for. So he was convicted of obstruction. Libby wasn't even the source of released information! I guess he just thought he was.

I am writing if Trump did not criminally collude with Russian, he would not be trying to keep investigators from finding it out as it did not happen.

Loved this bit:

Was this entire thing an abuse of power by the deep state to spy on a Presidential candidate? I think it was and heads should be rolling. If I am right, this makes Watergate look like a prank.

My beef: why was there no questioning about the DNC alleged Russian hack and Seth Rich's murder? My thoughts are, the hack could be embarrassing to Republican interests too.

Gorfias:

Another thing:
Suppose Trump fired Comey because Comey was investigating him. It matters why that bothered him and one has to prove it. If it was because he was afraid Comey would find criminal collusion with Russia, that is obstruction. But if there was no criminal collusion involved, he would not have to obstruct Comey for that reason. Ultimately, I thought there were no criminal allegations in the report as after years of unobstructed investigation, they do not have convincing evidence of it having happened.

Trump basically did fire Comey because he was investigating him.

Trump knew perfectly well he was vulnerable to FBI investigations. We might note even Trump insiders of the time like Steve Bannon have admitted he was was vulnerable. Bear in mind this doesn't have to mean he was legally culpable, as political humiliation would have been motive enough to impede investigation. We know Trump specifically questioned Comey whether he was loyal: that is, loyal to Trump, rather than public office and the country. Comey demurred, and Trump fired him. Nor does Comey's firing exist in isolation, as Mueller's report indicates a persistent pattern of interference or a desire to interfere.

Gorfias:
I'm thinking of Scooter Libby. He really WAS afraid that truthful answers would reveal what the investigators were looking for. So he was convicted of obstruction. Libby wasn't even the source of released information! I guess he just thought he was.

Scooter Libby took a dive to protect his bosses. He'll have done so knowing perfectly well his bosses would then ensure he got off lightly.

Was this entire thing an abuse of power by the deep state to spy on a Presidential candidate? I think it was and heads should be rolling. If I am right, this makes Watergate look like a prank.

State intelligence and security agencies should vet presidential candidates, because the idea of a president beholden to unfriendly foreign powers is pretty terrifying. In most cases they generally won't need to specifically, because candidates have been in high office and already intensely scrutinised. But an outsider with all sorts of "interesting" personal business abroad...

Gorfias:

I am writing if Trump did not criminally collude with Russian, he would not be trying to keep investigators from finding it out as it did not happen.

Yes, he would, because numerous members of his campaign did act in a criminal manner (as the investigation found). That's a very bad look, even if its not enough to prove criminality on Trump's part, it's more than enough motive to obstruct.

Silvanus:

Gorfias:

I am writing if Trump did not criminally collude with Russian, he would not be trying to keep investigators from finding it out as it did not happen.

Yes, he would, because numerous members of his campaign did act in a criminal manner (as the investigation found). That's a very bad look, even if its not enough to prove criminality on Trump's part, it's more than enough motive to obstruct.

Mueller concluded that his investigation was complete, thorough and unobstructed and that Trump had not colluded with Russia. It is odd he could do that but not on Obstruction (conclude on one thing but not on another) He either has enough evidence to suggest charges, or he does not. He concedes, after years of rabid, biased Trump haters kicking down Trump's lawyer's door and more, they do not have enough such evidence for Mueller to have recommended charges. This really is done.

I am curious: you question me to see if I committed crime A. You do not even know that I did commit crime B. I obstruct your investigation to keep you finding out I did B. It is found that crime A didn't even happen.

Are we done? I think we are. Reviewing.EDIT: Nope, I was wrong. Very broad concept though only about .3% of Federal arrests. Hard to prove? Not sure why after all of Mueller's investigating he still cannot recommend the charge.

My 2 biggest complaints with this entire hoax

It has allowed the government to fiddle over this while Rome burns. We need to focus on actually solving real problems.
It is an example of selective prosecution. Example, had Trump done this you would have people screaming Treason: "https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-more-flexibility-russia/"

Another big problem with all of this. That lack of specificity seems anti-Constitutional. For instance, here are 10 Must Haves for a Search Warrant
https://www.gambonelaw.com/library/10-must-haves-for-a-valid-search-warrant.cfm

But Obstruction can be scattershot?

That they're investigating Russia, but arresting people for unrelated crimes? Where is our Exclussionairy Rule?

Gorfias:

Silvanus:

Gorfias:

I am writing if Trump did not criminally collude with Russian, he would not be trying to keep investigators from finding it out as it did not happen.

Yes, he would, because numerous members of his campaign did act in a criminal manner (as the investigation found). That's a very bad look, even if its not enough to prove criminality on Trump's part, it's more than enough motive to obstruct.

Mueller concluded that his investigation was complete, thorough and unobstructed

This is false. He admitted his investigation was obstructed. He simply didn't confirm or deny that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice.

and that Trump had not colluded with Russia.

This is true. Keep in mind that Trump not having officially colluded with Russia has no bearing on whether Russia interfered in the election in Trump's favor (which he confirmed).

It is odd he could do that but not on Obstruction (conclude on one thing but not on another) He either has enough evidence to suggest charges, or he does not.

It's not odd if you were to use anything more credible than 4chan as a news source. Meuller literally cannot conclude that Trump obstructed justice. As a president (according to current reigning DOJ policy) cannot be indicted for crimes, to accuse the president of a crime would be to "violate the president's rights to face the accusations in a court of law" (rough paraphrasing of Meuller).

He concedes, after years of rabid, biased Trump haters kicking down Trump's lawyer's door and more, they do not have enough such evidence for Mueller to have recommended charges.

That's an interestingly bullshit way of describing the largely conservative FBI run by a conservative Republican director executing a lawful warrant written by a conservative Republican and signed by a sitting federal judge.

This really is done. Are we done? I think we are. Reviewing.

I'm hoping you're referring to your use of sources which seem to be making you even more ignorant of the facts than you were before reading them, but I'm guessing you're referring to something else here.

I am curious: you question me to see if I committed crime A. You do not even know that I did commit crime B. I obstruct your investigation to keep you finding out I did B. It is found that crime A didn't even happen.

EDIT: Nope, I was wrong. Very broad concept though only about .3% of Federal arrests. Hard to prove? Not sure why after all of Mueller's investigating he still cannot recommend the charge.

Again, you're only not sure because you're using shitty information sources. The reasons for this are widely known and often repeated.

My 2 biggest complaints with this entire hoax

It has allowed the government to fiddle over this while Rome burns. We need to focus on actually solving real problems.
It is an example of selective prosecution. Example, had Trump done this you would have people screaming Treason: "https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-more-flexibility-russia/"

Hmmm... It's almost like over half a decade later the geopolitical situation of the world has changed. It's almost like the Trump administration had a now convicted foreign asset as the National Security Adviser. It's almost like there's evidence confirmed by every US intelligence agency and many foreign ones that the Russians interfered in the US election in Trump's favor. It's almost like there are a significant number of members of Trump's administration with interactions with Russian government officials that they lied about during their security clearance applications and/or senate confirmation hearings.

Another big problem with all of this. That lack of specificity seems anti-Constitutional. For instance, here are 10 Must Haves for a Search Warrant
https://www.gambonelaw.com/library/10-must-haves-for-a-valid-search-warrant.cfm

But Obstruction can be scattershot?

That they're investigating Russia, but arresting people for unrelated crimes? Where is our Exclussionairy Rule?

A search warrant has absolutely nothing to do with the scope of an investigation. If you have evidence that Mueller and Co violated the terms of any of the innumerable search warrants they executed during their investigation, I'm sure the FBI would love to hear about it. I'm not sure who is feeding you these talking points, but they lack even a basic understanding of the law.

Avnger:

Gorfias:

and that Trump had not colluded with Russia.

This is true. Keep in mind that Trump not having officially colluded with Russia has no bearing on whether Russia interfered in the election in Trump's favor (which he confirmed).

This isn't actually "true". He said that they had not yet found evidence of Trump directly colluding with Russia, not that evidence doesn't exist. However, There is evidence his campaign did, Trump's own son colluded with Russia and according to Trump's former attorney, Trump was aware of it. In addition, there was also evidence that Russian hackers actually did act on attempts to hack Clinton and the DNC when Trump called for it publicly. People thought Trump was joking, but according to Flynn, he was serious:

Behind the scenes, Mr. Trump was serious, according to the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. It said that Mr. Flynn, by then a retired three-star Army intelligence officer, told the investigators "that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails."

Moscow's most intense efforts came just five hours after Mr. Trump first signaled his desire by declaring in Florida in July 2016, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." Skilled Russian attackers working for two different military units of Russia?s G.R.U. intelligence agency one called Unit 26165, another Unit 74455 went to work on exactly that task. Mr. Mueller's investigators never cracked the mystery of how they knew, within hours, which servers and accounts to try to breach.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/clinton-emails-trump-russia.html

This alone broke US law. Simply because Trump asked Russia publicly does not mean "it doesn't count". Since Trump was making a serious effort to find them, it does actually count.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/01/02/trump-broke-law-russia-clinton-emails-hold-him-accountable-column/2449564002/

This, of course, is in addition to the whole Wikileaks issue.

Gorfias:

Mueller concluded that his investigation was complete, thorough and unobstructed and that Trump had not colluded with Russia. It is odd he could do that but not on Obstruction (conclude on one thing but not on another) He either has enough evidence to suggest charges, or he does not. He concedes, after years of rabid, biased Trump haters kicking down Trump's lawyer's door and more, they do not have enough such evidence for Mueller to have recommended charges.

It wasn't Mueller's job to charge the president, it was Mueller's job to investigate and present the evidence. Much like it is not the job of the police to decide whether someone should be charged with a crime. If Trump is to be impeached, it is up to Congress to pursue charges, and Mueller was basically not allowed to charge the president by normal legal process.

There is an added complication here - imagine Mueller did recommend the president be charged. But if the president is to face charges in a normal court, he has to see out 18 months to 5+ years, under threat, with no recourse to clear his name because the case cannot proceed. That is itself unjust.

I am curious: you question me to see if I committed crime A. You do not even know that I did commit crime B. I obstruct your investigation to keep you finding out I did B. It is found that crime A didn't even happen.

As far as I am aware, obstruction of justice does not depend on whether a crime was actually committed in the first place.

That they're investigating Russia, but arresting people for unrelated crimes? Where is our Exclussionairy Rule?

So if the police are investigating someone for murder and find out they're selling drugs, they can't charge them with drug dealing?

Let's bear in mind that the document authorising the investigation explicitly states that it can encompass other matters relating to the Russia investigation, which obviously includes whether members of the Trump team were trying to block the investigation. Furthermore, contextually, the FBI had already started looking at an obstruction case prior to the investigation (the special counsel duly took over that too), so everyone knew what the score was when it kicked off. And if then discovers people have been committing other crimes, what's the problem?

Lil devils x:

Avnger:

Gorfias:

This is true. Keep in mind that Trump not having officially colluded with Russia has no bearing on whether Russia interfered in the election in Trump's favor (which he confirmed).

This isn't actually "true". He said that they had not yet found evidence of Trump directly colluding with Russia, not that evidence doesn't exist. However, There is evidence his campaign did, Trump's own son colluded with Russia and according to Trump's former attorney, Trump was aware of it. In addition, there was also evidence that Russian hackers actually did act on attempts to hack Clinton and the DNC when Trump called for it publicly. People thought Trump was joking, but according to Flynn, he was serious:

Behind the scenes, Mr. Trump was serious, according to the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. It said that Mr. Flynn, by then a retired three-star Army intelligence officer, told the investigators "that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails."

Moscow's most intense efforts came just five hours after Mr. Trump first signaled his desire by declaring in Florida in July 2016, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." Skilled Russian attackers working for two different military units of Russia?s G.R.U. intelligence agency one called Unit 26165, another Unit 74455 went to work on exactly that task. Mr. Mueller's investigators never cracked the mystery of how they knew, within hours, which servers and accounts to try to breach.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/clinton-emails-trump-russia.html

This alone broke US law. Simply because Trump asked Russia publicly does not mean "it doesn't count". Since Trump was making a serious effort to find them, it does actually count.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/01/02/trump-broke-law-russia-clinton-emails-hold-him-accountable-column/2449564002/

This, of course, is in addition to the whole Wikileaks issue.

Fair correction. Thanks.

By "true" I simply meant more that there was no direct, concrete evidence of Trump personally committing the offense of "collusion" (not an actual thing, it would be "conspiracy to defraud the government" or something similar). His administration and campaign in general are guilty of that as fuck though.

Gorfias:

Mueller concluded that his investigation was complete, thorough and unobstructed [...]

No, he categorically did not conclude that. He quite explicitly referred to several obstructions.

Gorfias:
It is odd he could do that but not on Obstruction (conclude on one thing but not on another) He either has enough evidence to suggest charges, or he does not. He concedes, after years of rabid, biased Trump haters kicking down Trump's lawyer's door and more, they do not have enough such evidence for Mueller to have recommended charges. This really is done.

To recommend charges? That's not his job, and is out of the purview of his office and the investigation.

Gorfias:

I am curious: you question me to see if I committed crime A. You do not even know that I did commit crime B. I obstruct your investigation to keep you finding out I did B. It is found that crime A didn't even happen.

Are we done? I think we are.

Of course we aren't. Obstruction is a crime regardless of whether you have committed Crime A.

Gorfias:

It has allowed the government to fiddle over this while Rome burns. We need to focus on actually solving real problems.

The government is perfectly capable of focusing on more than one thing. The suggestion that we should simply presume innocence, even with evidence of criminality, simply in order to allow the government to expend more energy elsewhere is absolutely ridiculous.

Gorfias:

Another big problem with all of this. That lack of specificity seems anti-Constitutional. For instance, here are 10 Must Haves for a Search Warrant
https://www.gambonelaw.com/library/10-must-haves-for-a-valid-search-warrant.cfm

But Obstruction can be scattershot?

I have absolutely no idea what the point here is meant to be. Obviously, there are different requirements for a search warrant and a criminal charge of obstruction of justice, because one is a criminal charge and the other isn't. Mueller successfully requested search warrants-- which satisfied those "must haves", and turned up evidence. Charges were also successfully brought against numerous members of Trump's campaign.

What do you even mean, "obstruction can be scattershot"? Do you mean the definition is too loose? Lack of specificity in what? The report was very specific.

Gorfias:
That they're investigating Russia, but arresting people for unrelated crimes? Where is our Exclussionairy Rule?

What rule? Are you seriously suggesting that if proof of criminal activity comes up during the investigation, they should ignore it unless it directly relates to cooperation with Russia?

That's... now how the law works. It would be an outrage if it was.

I am sick of CNN, and MSNBC implicitly, and explicitly saying a Republicans will protect us. That a Republican-lite candidate like Joe Biden will save us from Trump, that a Republican like Mueller will save us from Trump, that a Republican helping media will protect us from Trump's mean tweets.

No, an actual democrat will be the one to protect us, not a republican or republican-lite.

Gergar12:
I am sick of CNN, and MSNBC implicitly, and explicitly saying a Republicans will protect us. That a Republican-lite candidate like Joe Biden will save us from Trump, that a Republican like Mueller will save us from Trump, that a Republican helping media will protect us from Trump's mean tweets.

No, an actual democrat will be the one to protect us, not a republican or republican-lite.

Of course they do, they are corporate backed and primarily represent the wealthy. Why do you think they put the spin they do on Sanders and Warren? They will do whatever it takes to promote whatever candidates that are pro corporation pro wealth hoarding.

It is like the whole nonsense about "Medicare for all" is somehow bad for taking away your employer sponsored insurance plans that you for some reason want to cling to or something? Medicare for all would be better in every possible way than employer sponsored health insurance, but they choose to completely ignore that part.
For example:
1)Of course you can keep your doctor because unless your physician decides to retire, they will be required to take Medicare for all, so unless your doctor really doesn't like you, it isn't like they are going to kick you out. LOL
2)You will keep your insurance no matter where you work and/or if you switch jobs. You never have to worry about losing your health insurance again or having delays simply because you moved as it can be provided via social security number and since it is universal, we can eliminate " approval" wait periods as everyone will already be approved with he exception of immigrants. We can provide public options for immigrants and vacationers as well, but it would not be the automatic system that would exist for all citizens.
3)No more copays at the time of visit.
4)No more monthly premiums.
5)Employers can pay people more rather than offer them insurance packages.
6)Most people's healthcare costs will not increase, they will most likely decrease, since the majority of US citizens income and wealth are far too low to have to pay more in the first place and they can provide Medicare for all by increasing taxes on wealth and on the highest income earners to pay for improved quality of care for everyone else.
7)Medicare for all can be designed to mirror the best insurance plans, and regulation can be passed to eliminate out of pocket expenses and to reduce poor quality of care. Currently there is not much protection for those who are providing poor quality of care, this can be remedied via regulation, as currently it is the lawyers who earn the most from medical malpractice and it is extremely difficult for those harmed to actually receive help for damages done to them. Often when a doctor makes a mistake, the patient can have difficulty even finding another physician who will help correct what was done to them in the first place due to the liability the second doctor can have by even trying. Help for these issues can be built into the system rather than an afterthought. Building in patient protection is something that is long overdue as it is.

Oh and how they have been going on about "Is a wealth tax constitutional?!" Of course it is. They are just afraid because many of them are part of the small group of 75,000 people that would be taxed on wealth as most those news anchors hoard a good amount of wealth themselves. The wealth hoarders are horrified at the wealth tax finally catching up with their hoards and honestly it is pathetic at this point. For example:

Apportionment of a Real Property Tax Is Not Necessarily a Deal-Breaker
Assuming that the Court reverts to the pre-Pollock understanding that taxes on real property (but not on other forms of wealth) are direct taxes, then apportionment among the states actually could be accomplished in a somewhat sensible manner. The portion of wealth tax revenue raised from real property holdings in each state could be rebated to the state government as a block grant, while the non-real property portion would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury. Net tax revenue from each state would thereby be precisely proportionate to population (it would be equal to population times zero). For households with a net worth of $50 million or more, personal residences and other real estate constitute only about 7% of assets, according to IRS data, so the share of all wealth tax revenues that would be subject to apportionment would be small. Households with a net worth of $50 million or more would not have a strong incentive to shift wealth to real property because they would pay the same 2% tax either way. Apportionment of the real property share would only affect where the revenues go. There might be a weak incentive to shift wealth to real property for high-net-worth households with lots of state pride (?Don?t Mess with Texas,? etc.) or who anticipate that some of their state?s block grant revenue would flow back to them. But this seems like a much smaller problem than exempting real property from a wealth tax entirely.

https://medium.com/whatever-source-derived/how-to-tax-wealth-constitutionally-863ce992ac7e
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-warren-wealth-tax-20190125-story.html

Although they already deemed that cars and other personal property could already be taxed when they applied the federal carriage tax, they also deemed that sometimes land and such can be taxed as they did with the death tax when people have property shift hands. This if someone attempts to divide up their property to keep from paying additional taxes, they will also be subject to taxes at the time they attempt to make it shift hands. Though to really get at the heart of the wealth hoarding they have to go also go after tax loopholes and hiding of assets as well as underreporting. I also agree with the capital gains tax, but there have been several approaches to dealing with capital gains so I am not sure which plan on that would be best for now. Some want to destroy capital gains all together by forcing companies profits to be tied to how it benefits employees and that is also a good plan to put an end to predatory companies that buy and bleed them dry while putting workers out of the street, but maybe they should hit that from both ends, not just one or the other.

Gergar12:
I am sick of CNN, and MSNBC implicitly, and explicitly saying a Republicans will protect us. That a Republican-lite candidate like Joe Biden will save us from Trump, that a Republican like Mueller will save us from Trump, that a Republican helping media will protect us from Trump's mean tweets.

No, an actual democrat will be the one to protect us, not a republican or republican-lite.

The people who took out Nixon were Republicans. The Dems could do literally nothing as their voice didn't matter. It's similar to Bill Clinton. The one reason why he stayed is becuase the Dems didn't take him out. Not that he did some wrong (or not). Not whether he was doing a good job (or not). The media did little to change things either.

Clinton gives you another example, banking reform. Republicans were trying to do something similar for years but a Dem did it becuase they already had half a house on their side and only had to convince a few Dems to get it across. A proper Medicare for All or gun control will never work until a Republican makes that stand. Boris Johnson is being very pro-immigrant at the moment and that makes his immigrantion stance more palatable. Why, in the gods names, Trump went off on immigrants remains a mystery to me, as he's been blocked ever since. He could be calling this camps at the border refugee camps and he wouldn't receive backlash. Even if they treated the immigrants the same. These camps, under a Dem, would probably be accepted more readily, especially if they sold it as helping them, becuase that's they way the world works

Lil devils x:
Of course they do, they are corporate backed and primarily represent the wealthy. Why do you think they put the spin they do on Sanders and Warren? They will do whatever it takes to promote whatever candidates that are pro corporation pro wealth hoarding.

Why golly gee wilikers, it's almost as if CNN and MSNBC are wholly-owned subsidiaries of two of the four multinationals that collectively control over 90% of media Americans consume, who did more than their fair share of contributing to the $5 billion in earned media that put Trump in office, who went on to being Trump's biggest beneficiaries between highly lucrative coverage of Trump shenanigans, Trump tax cuts, and Trump deregulation. Didn't I make an entire thread about the toxic, codependent relationship Trump and corporate media wherein I directly compared the entire situation to kayfabe, that was thoroughly poo-poo'ed just a few weeks ago?

trunkage:
...The one reason why he stayed is becuase the Dems didn't take him out...

Realistically, it's because Republicans pissed away their political capital using impeachment as a carrot-and-stick motivator to get out the vote for three consecutive election cycles, while Ken Starr couldn't find his own dick with both hands and a map in broad daylight. Republicans only impeached in October '98 because they knew for a fact if, after six years of promising impeachment and failing to deliver, they didn't vote to impeach they were fucked come hell or high water at the hands of their own base. Impeachment in '98 was damage control, and that's the lesson House Democrats have utterly failed in acknowledging, let alone taking to heart.

House Democrats are worried that, if they vote to impeach, it'll mobilize Republican voters. This is the single stupidest fucking notion I've ever heard, and the melon brains that are allowing this to dictate electoral strategy need to be tarred and feathered. End of story. Republican strategists are going to turn 2020 into a referendum on impeachment regardless what Democrats do.

Meanwhile, if Democrats don't start impeachment procedures, they run the very real risk of alienating their own base and triggering them to stay home or protest vote. Mobilization has always been Democrats' chief challenge, and Democrats are going to need any and every mobilization advantage they can get in 2020. Democrats cannot afford to not impeach, even if the Senate acquits.

Basically, it boils down to one key issue: Democrats need political strategists that aren't the stupidest fucking people on the planet.

Silvanus:
This aside from
the fact that the investigation found numerous instances of interference and evidence of obstruction-- just not enough to bring indictment against Trump himself.

Weeeeeell...not exactly. Mueller made it clear that he was following the policy of the AG that you couldn't indict a sitting President, and that he could be investigated after leaving office. When the only reason you're not in deep shit is because you're in an office that prevents it, it really isn't that there's not enough to indict.

trunkage:
The people who took out Nixon were Republicans.

In a very different time.

trunkage:

Gergar12:
I am sick of CNN, and MSNBC implicitly, and explicitly saying a Republicans will protect us. That a Republican-lite candidate like Joe Biden will save us from Trump, that a Republican like Mueller will save us from Trump, that a Republican helping media will protect us from Trump's mean tweets.

No, an actual democrat will be the one to protect us, not a republican or republican-lite.

The people who took out Nixon were Republicans. The Dems could do literally nothing as their voice didn't matter. It's similar to Bill Clinton. The one reason why he stayed is becuase the Dems didn't take him out. Not that he did some wrong (or not). Not whether he was doing a good job (or not). The media did little to change things either.

Could you elaborate what you mean here?

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.