Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok I read more.  So now not only do I declare he's wrong about that, but about a ton of more things.  Honestly I couldn't finish all his entirely unsubstantiated bitching.

Well done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

SDNY aren’t going after him until he is out of office.

What makes you think that? If Trump is re-elected, limitation periods might bar action.

I expect that if offences are uncovered, there will be indictments, and then court battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also worried that Mueller's report is going to be a big disappointment by not finding strong evidence of collusion/conspiracy with Russia to commit an unlawful act.  The lack of further indictments, when so far no one has been charged with collusion with Russia, suggests that Mueller just didn't find the evidence to support such a charge beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's seems extremely unlikely that Mueller could conclude Trump colluded with Russia but not any of his other staff members.

I've always felt that collusion was a long shot, but the obstruction of justice case seemed much stronger.  Some of Trump's public actions have seemed like textbook cases of obstruction.  However, if Mueller doesn't find collusion/conspiracy with Russia, it weakens the case on obstruction.  There has also been no indication that Mueller's two year investigation has been interfered with.  If there is no underlying criminal/unlawful behavior, then what is there to obstruct?  Trump can argue he fired Comey for legitimate reasons, as set forth in Rosenstein's memo, and not because he was trying stop the Russia investigation.  That he allowed Mueller to complete the investigation without interference (as far as we know) supports this position.  

Without the finding of collusion or obstruction, Trump's daily assertion that there isn't any collusion and that this was just a giant witch hunt are going to be validated.  He's going to hammer Democrat's on this nonstop.  He's going to use this to rile up his base.  And Republicans are going to have a lot more cover for continuing to support Trump.  And it's not going to help with Democrat turnout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

What makes you think that? If Trump is re-elected, limitation periods might bar action.

I expect that if offences are uncovered, there will be indictments, and then court battles.

Due to it appearing much like a coup for a single state, in particular a blue state, to indict a sitting Republican President. By law they could do it. It's just that it is the kind of event that could set off mass civil unrest or worse. 

They might Indict Trump Jr. or the Kush though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I'm also worried that Mueller's report is going to be a big disappointment by not finding strong evidence of collusion/conspiracy with Russia to commit an unlawful act.  The lack of further indictments, when so far no one has been charged with collusion with Russia, suggests that Mueller just didn't find the evidence to support such a charge beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's seems extremely unlikely that Mueller could conclude Trump colluded with Russia but not any of his other staff members.

Uh, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Stone.  All pretty high-level "staff members," all facing jail time for crimes involved with interacting with Russia.  No one has been charged with "collusion" because that's not a federal crime.

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I've always felt that collusion was a long shot, but the obstruction of justice case seemed much stronger.

There is absolutely no indication thus far that Mueller did not make a very strong case for obstruction.  He's not going to indict the president on obstruction, but that has nothing to do with him alleging such in his report.  Like, seriously that's exactly what happened with the Starr report.

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

However, if Mueller doesn't find collusion/conspiracy with Russia, it weakens the case on obstruction.

No it doesn't.

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

That he allowed Mueller to complete the investigation without interference (as far as we know) supports this position.  

This does help, I agree there.

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Without the finding of collusion or obstruction, Trump's daily assertion that there isn't any collusion and that this was just a giant witch hunt are going to be validated.  He's going to hammer Democrat's on this nonstop.  He's going to use this to rile up his base.  And Republicans are going to have a lot more cover for continuing to support Trump.  And it's not going to help with Democrat turnout.

Except for your last sentence, all of this was going to be true no matter what.  Unless Mueller found that Trump, like, killed children on Putin's orders.  Your last sentence is both irrelevant and an entirely unfounded assumption that lacks any type of credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Stone.  All pretty high-level "staff members," all facing jail time for crimes involved with interacting with Russia.  No one has been charged with "collusion" because that's not a federal crime.

Collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime is a crime.  Everyone should know by now that "collusion" in this context is just used as a shorthand, and I even spelled it out in my post.  No one has been charged with conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime, and this was Mueller's primary charge.

The rest of your post, like saying "No it doesn't" isn't worth responding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime [snip]

Name a precedent where a political scandal involved a conspiracy charge that wasn't aimed at getting to the main target.  The reason there aren't any when that target is the president is because no prosecutor wants to take that on, for reasons we both seem to basically agree on.  But using that to pose as if nothing came out of the investigation is a Hodor-sized heap of horseshit.  And certainly not worth responding to.  Sorry I tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Uh, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Stone.  All pretty high-level "staff members," all facing jail time for crimes involved with interacting with Russia.  No one has been charged with "collusion" because that's not a federal crime.

Manafort: Indicted for being an undeclared representative of the Ukrainian Government and associated financial crimes.  No interaction with Russia.

Cohen: Tax evasion, false statements, and improper campaign contribution related to hush money to a porn star.  No Russian interaction

Stone: Indicted for lying about his interactions with WikiLeaks.  No Russian interaction.

Flynn: Indicted for lying about his interaction with the Russian Ambassador, sure.  But there is nothing in the indictment or court filings to suggest that his interaction with the Russian Ambassador itself was illegal.  Also, the interaction was in regards to asking Russia not to retaliate against the US, that is, for Russia to take action that is in favor of the US, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Manafort: Indicted for being an undeclared representative of the Ukrainian Government and associated financial crimes.  No interaction with Russia.

Cohen: Tax evasion, false statements, and improper campaign contribution related to hush money to a porn star.  No Russian interaction

 Stone: Indicted for lying about his interactions with WikiLeaks.  No Russian interaction.

Are these jokes or are you actually that shockingly naive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

These are facts based on court documents and not the wishful hopes of a conspiracy theorist.

Yep, and let's look at the facts you yourself mentioned, ignoring many other facts you conveniently omitted.  

Manafort - yes, convicted in part due to his relations with "the Ukranian government," otherwise known as Viktor Yanukovych, otherwise known as a Putin puppet that is currently in exile wanted for high treason.  In Russia.  Cohen - yes, convicted of false statements, including lying to Congress.  What about?  His involvement with Trump's business with Russia.  Stone - yes, indicted for trying to coordinate with Wikileaks concerning their publication of stolen DNC emails.  Who gave Wikileaks those emails?  Russia.  This isn't the moon landing or Roswell, it's trying to find a connection between Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yep, and let's look at the facts you yourself mentioned, ignoring many other facts you conveniently omitted.  

Manafort - yes, convicted in part due to his relations with "the Ukranian government," otherwise known as Viktor Yanukovych, otherwise known as a Putin puppet that is currently in exile wanted for high treason.  In Russia.  Cohen - yes, convicted of false statements, including lying to Congress.  What about?  His involvement with Trump's business with Russia.  Stone - yes, indicted for trying to coordinate with Wikileaks concerning their publication of stolen DNC emails.  Who gave Wikileaks those emails?  Russia.  This isn't the moon landing or Roswell, it's trying to find a connection between Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick.

Manafort: We agree then, connections to Ukraine, not Russia. Also from years ago, before his association with the Trump campaign. 

Cohen, again, nothing in the indictment or court filings suggests there was anything illegal about the proposed business dealings with Russia.

Stone: As is the recurring pattern, nothing in the indictment or court filings suggests that there was anything illegal in his communication with WikiLeaks, only that he lied about it under oath. Nor is there any indication that Stone knew the information given to WikiLeaks was from Russia, or even that Wikileaks itself knew the information was from Russia (To this day they deny the information was given to them by Russia).  

The timeline of events, even if taken at face value, consistently shows Russia attempting to make contact with the Trump campaign through the summer of 2016...because they didn't have any preexisting contact with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Triskele said:

I have a question that I worry will come across as snark, but I don't mean it that way. 

One sees some discussion of "really, a white man?" with respect to the Dem nomination.  I feel like one sees it with O'Rourke the most but also with Sanders and Biden to some extent.  

Does the fact that Buttigieg is gay de-fang that criticism at all for him?  Put another way, does the #notawhiteman movement (I'm totally making this up) say that it's different if it's Pete? 

I'll bite 

Well, Buttigieg has way less of a shot, we also aren't hearing this about Inslee or Brown or Joe Exotic.  

I think with respect to Biden, Sanders, and O'Rourke, and any commentary on them being white men: Sanders and Biden have a couple of red flags.  Sanders has that old rape essay, refuses to take race into account with class issues, and was very slow and defensive about dealing with shitty behavior by some of his staff and volunteers from 2016.  Plus he's backed pro-life candidates in the past.  Any one of these might be ok on its own, all together they make you wonder if he's really trying to understand or capable of understanding someone from a different background.  

Biden, you've got the Anita Hill stuff, seems like a #metoo time bomb, wasn't exactly ahead of the curve on race issues, is also old, establishment candidate, etc.

O'Rourke just lost a Senate race, seems like a decent enough guy, but also seems privileged as hell.  Why vote for a privileged loser with no real platform when you've got people like Harris, Gillibrand, Castro, Sanders, or Klobuchar?  If we're going with 2018 losers I'd take Abrams over O'Rourke any day.  She faced much more overwhelming odds and voter suppression than Beto did.

Maybe Buttigieg doesn't get the same treatment because he's gay, maybe he doesn't get it because he's relatively unknown and not considered as likely a candidate.   At least he knows what it's like to be a minority and not have the same rights as most people, even if it's less of a visible distinction for him.  And he's by far the most inspiring speaker out Sanders, Biden, and O'Rourke.

Also .. we've had 44 white men serve as president.  I think you can question someone's presidential credentials on the grounds of them being a white man until we've had 44 presidents who haven't been.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Manafort: We agree then, connections to Ukraine, not Russia. Also from years ago, before his association with the Trump campaign. 

Cohen, again, nothing in the indictment or court filings suggests there was anything illegal about the proposed business dealings with Russia.

Stone: As is the recurring pattern, nothing in the indictment or court filings suggests that there was anything illegal in his communication with WikiLeaks, only that he lied about it under oath. Nor is there any indication that Stone knew the information given to WikiLeaks was from Russia, or even that Wikileaks itself knew the information was from Russia (To this day they deny the information was given to them by Russia).  

The timeline of events, even if taken at face value, consistently shows Russia attempting to make contact with the Trump campaign through the summer of 2016...because they didn't have any preexisting contact with it.

I take a different tack.

 

1 - The people listed were all convicted of serious crimes.  

2 - These people were all Trump associates of one stripe or another.

3 - Hence, Trump either let himself get repeatedly hoodwinked by criminals, implying extremely poor judgment on his part; OR

4 - Trump knew these people were criminals and and elected to associate with them anyhow, which makes Trump a criminal by association.

At this point, Trump fans are either gullible fools or they are perfectly fine with having a criminal or incompetent in the oval office.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Bold Barry here would surely be as judgment-free and neutral to the charges if everyone within Obama's radius had been convicted of these same crimes, yes?

BUTTER EMAILS!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immigration Officials Snatch 9-Year-Old U.S. Citizen Heading To School, Hold Her For 2 Days
“I was scared. I was completely by myself,” says sobbing fourth-grader.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/julia-isabel-amparo-medina-immigration-border_n_5c96aa60e4b0a6329e177fbb

Quote

 

A 9-year-old American citizen on her way to school was apprehended by U.S. immigration officials and detained for some 32 hours before she was released back to her family. Federal officials said later that the girl, who was carrying a U.S. passport card with her, gave “inconsistent information.”

“I was scared. I didn’t have my mom or my brother. I was completely by myself,” Julia Isabel Amparo Medina told NBC-7 TV in San Diego.

Medina, her 14-year-old brother and two friends were being driven to school by the friends’ mom from their home in Tijuana to San Ysidro last Monday. Thousands of people travel through the Tijuana-San Ysidro crossing daily for school or work.

When traffic slowed to a crawl, the mom told the children to walk across the border so they wouldn’t be late. An official detained Medina, saying she didn’t look like the photo on her passport card.

They finally released her Tuesday evening about 32 hours later. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a statement that the girl, whom they confirmed is an American citizen, “provided inconsistent information during her inspection,” which they didn’t elaborate. She was taken into custody so officers could “perform due diligence in confirming her identity and citizenship,” according to the statement.

Officials had no explanation for why the process took 32 hours or why the 9-year-old was in custody the entire time. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I take a different tack.

 

1 - The people listed were all convicted of serious crimes.  

2 - These people were all Trump associates of one stripe or another.

3 - Hence, Trump either let himself get repeatedly hoodwinked by criminals, implying extremely poor judgment on his part; OR

4 - Trump knew these people were criminals and and elected to associate with them anyhow, which makes Trump a criminal by association.

At this point, Trump fans are either gullible fools or they are perfectly fine with having a criminal or incompetent in the oval office.  

You could'Ve also mentioned, that the "Ukrainian" Manafort worked for was a Russian puppet, which was driven out during the so called  Orange Revolution (the irony), which more or less started the whole Crime war/occupation. Yanukovich is currently residing in his Russian exile, and in the Ukraine he is wanted for high treason (not sure if he has faced trial in absentia).

I know, it was not your claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...