Jump to content

US Politics: A Farewell to Arms


DMC

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I've been seeing these for more than just the past couple of days. 

Perhaps Trump got early wind he wasn’t going to be charged with anything?

If not, it makes no sense. It’s a waste of money and could cause voter fatigue, for lack of a better phrase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Perhaps Trump got early wind he wasn’t going to be charged with anything?

If not, it makes no sense. It’s a waste of money and could cause voter fatigue, for lack of a better phrase.

As the Justice Department’s long held position is that no sitting President can be charged with a crime he could know that with confidence.

That does not mean he didn’t commit “Obstruction of Justice”.  Just that he will not be charged with that crime, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is the part I still can’t get past. Jr. clearly knew he was meeting with a representative of the Russian government with the intent to receive something of value to influence an election. How does that get a pass?

And what makes it worse is he repeatedly lied about it. He changed his story four or five times. How is that not a cover up?

More broadly, if all these people were innocent, why did they all behave like the guiltiest people on the planet?

It doesn’t make sense unless you accept that they’re really just the dumbest people on the planet, and being an idiot is a justifiable excuse for unintentionally committing serious crimes.

Criminal conspiracy requires that two parties agree to commit a crime, and that at least of one of the parties takes an overt act to commit the crime.  Trump Jr.'s agreement to hear that Russian lawyer out in hopes of obtaining dirt on Clinton is not sufficient to satisfy all the elements of the crime of conspiracy.  It may be morally questionable, but it's a huge stretch to call it criminal.  You'd have to argue that simply agreeing to attend the meeting was criminal. 

You need a clearer criminal act, like hacking the DNC's email server or coordinating with the Russians on their the disinformation campaign.  If there was strong evidence that Trump or his campaign engaged in these activities, then Mueller might have a case on the conspiracy charge.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As the Justice Department’s long held position is that no sitting President can be charged with a crime he could know that with confidence.

That does not mean he didn’t commit “Obstruction of Justice”.  Just that he will not be charged with that crime, now.

And that position could theoretically change. Plus you know the legal community is somewhat divided on said position. But regardless, Mueller could have recommended that the House impeach Trump, the Senate try and remove him and afterwards he be indicted. He didn’t and he basically told Barr that three weeks before his report was filed. Is it inconceivable that Barr could then pass that information along? Barr did, after all, play a role in the Iran-Contra pardons at the end of Bush’s term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

You know the saying, strike while the iron is hot?

I just heard on CNN that the US government has tonight asked 'the courts' (at whatever level) to strike down all of the ACA,

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I did. And I got high as fuck.

15 hours ago, Triskele said:

I'm a little bit off of the ledge from the last two days, and it's the whole "the population at large doesn't care that much about the Russia investigation / the 2018 midterms weren't fought on the Russia investigation" thing.  

My personal favorite part of all this has been that no one really seemed to give a fuck about the fact that an antagonistic power essentially tried to extort our Democracy. I mean, at first there seemed like a responsible amount of people with their eye on the ball. But after the sanctions (which I thought were a pathetic response) never went into place folks just kinda moved on from the "someone tried to hijack our democracy, what do we do about it?" conversation to instead focus on just Trump. Everyone's always focusing on Trump, playing into his hands. At least that's been my perspective. That the Mueller Report everyone was hoping so hard for was all about getting rid of Donald when the bigger problem has been lying low across the Pacific.

Obviously that's not a blanket statement, lots of different people have said lots of different things in the past couple of years. Just my overview.

14 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Oh hey, the Trump admin is now not only pushing that part of the ACA should fall (the preexisting conditions part, which is the one that is HUGELY popular) - now they're pushing that the whole thing should just die.

Seriously, fuck them so very, very much. 

I have struggled severely in deciding upon the words to use in this space. You're alright, Kal. You're good people.

14 hours ago, DMC said:

Sometimes it really astonishes me that the Democrats just won the House a few months ago - in spite of odds that all the cynics here thought were insurmountable until they realized their claims were stupid.

:cheers:

There are certain advantages for the nihilist, one being that we can always wait patiently for the next disaster. Confident in its inevitability. You... optimists bother so terribly over the failings of the species. Hoping to cure it? Seems exhausting.

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

It doesn’t make sense unless you accept that they’re really just the dumbest people on the planet, and being an idiot is a justifiable excuse for unintentionally committing serious crimes.

Republicans have a history of believing that things like mental incompetency are grounds for interpretive punishment.

Just ask Texas about their execution policies.

2 hours ago, mormont said:

IANAL but it seems to me that if all of the things that were alleged a few weeks ago were true, the case would certainly be proceeding.

IANAL too, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this conversation...

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I've been seeing these for more than just the past couple of days. 

Been since December for me. I also keep getting videos about how Kathleen Kennedy Beta-Cucked Star Wars in my YouTube feed.

I think I need to stop visiting Stormfront. I went for the Nazis, but I stayed for the Fantasy Football leagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

You... optimists bother so terribly over the failings of the species. Hoping to cure it? Seems exhausting.

In my case at least, it's not that I'm an optimist. In fact, from agricultural, Lutheran Midwest, I am a pessimist.  However, I also am, according to friends, an idealist.  I never think of myself that way, but there are a lot of people, even on this board, who do seem indeed idealists.

I'm also, being born and bred a Lutheran, rather big on justice, and that eviLe doers get their just desserts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

:cheers:

There are certain advantages for the nihilist, one being that we can always wait patiently for the next disaster. Confident in its inevitability. You... optimists bother so terribly over the failings of the species. Hoping to cure it? Seems exhausting.

Only on these threads and with conversations with my ceaselessly negative brother would I be called an optimist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Criminal conspiracy requires that two parties agree to commit a crime, and that at least of one of the parties takes an overt act to commit the crime.  Trump Jr.'s agreement to hear that Russian lawyer out in hopes of obtaining dirt on Clinton is not sufficient to satisfy all the elements of the crime of conspiracy.  It may be morally questionable, but it's a huge stretch to call it criminal.  You'd have to argue that simply agreeing to attend the meeting was criminal. 

You need a clearer criminal act, like hacking the DNC's email server or coordinating with the Russians on their the disinformation campaign.  If there was strong evidence that Trump or his campaign engaged in these activities, then Mueller might have a case on the conspiracy charge.  

How formal does the commitment have to be? For example, Trump openly called for the Russians to hack his political opponent, and intelligence reports have indicated that they began hacking some what shortly after his remarks were made. The appeal for criminal behavior to take place occurred roughly six weeks after Jr. met with an explicit agent of the Russian government with the intent of gaining damaging information in Clinton. 

That seems to me that it could meet the criteria. You have a meeting between two parties for a stated purpose. A member of one of the two parties public calls for the stated purpose to take place, and the second party then proceeds to take the action, which is illegal in nature.

And that is just one of many facets in this case. Maybe the above is an example of a case you could win in civil court, but it's not worth making in criminal court. However, I have a hard time buying that the Trump campaign was "clean." Mueller really made a mistake by allowing Trump to skate on the interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Only on these threads and with conversations with my ceaselessly negative brother would I be called an optimist.

Dude, you're a fan of the Magic. By law you have to be an optimist, because no other reason to support that team.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Dude, you're a fan of the Magic. By law you have to be an optimist, because no other reason to support that team.

:P

You're forgetting self-loathing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

In the letter, McDonald's stated that the average starting wage at its corporate-owned stores already exceeds $10 per hour, "and while McDonald’s Corporation does not control the wages franchisees pay in their own restaurants, we believe the average starting wage offered by those independent business owners is likely similar."

McDonald's' decision to quit the National Restaurant Association's campaign against raising the minimum wage represents a serious blow to the trade group, which reportedly has lobbied against wage increases in more than 30 states.

"Ultimately, progress must come from all corners of our society," Gent wrote, "and McDonald’s Corporation is committed to playing a meaningful role in the spaces we occupy."

 

Exclusive: McDonald's to stop lobbying against minimum wage increases

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/26/mcdonalds-lobbying-minimum-wage-1238284

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

The fan of the team that routinely gets their ass handed to them by the Yankees.

Gentlemen, please! No need to bicker. We all agree that both of you suck equally and baseball sucks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Says the fan of the team that routinely gets their ass handed to them by the Yankees.

I get a loophole though, because the Yankees are the other team I root for. And having no expectations for your teams makes you numb to the losing. OTOH, every Yankees' season that doesn't end in a championship is a failure, and boy howdy have you been doing a lot of failing as of late.

Mu

      ha

           ha

                 ha

                       ha!

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gentlemen, please! No need to bicker. We all agree that both of you suck equally and baseball sucks. 

Don't think I've forgotten that you once said you'd be down for a Trump presidency in exchange for him ending baseball. You're lucky @Jaxom 1974 exists, otherwise you'd be the one I'd randomly trash for no reason.

Is that Cubs title still worth it Jax? Is it? IS IT???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Don't think I've forgotten that you once said you'd be down for a Trump presidency in exchange for him ending baseball. You're lucky @Jaxom 1974 exists, otherwise you'd be the one I'd randomly trash for no reason.

Is that Cubs title still worth it Jax? Is it? IS IT???

My heart says yes...my head just keeps asking for more liquor...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

How formal does the commitment have to be? For example, Trump openly called for the Russians to hack his political opponent, and intelligence reports have indicated that they began hacking some what shortly after his remarks were made. The appeal for criminal behavior to take place occurred roughly six weeks after Jr. met with an explicit agent of the Russian government with the intent of gaining damaging information in Clinton. 

That seems to me that it could meet the criteria. You have a meeting between two parties for a stated purpose. A member of one of the two parties public calls for the stated purpose to take place, and the second party then proceeds to take the action, which is illegal in nature.

And that is just one of many facets in this case. Maybe the above is an example of a case you could win in civil court, but it's not worth making in criminal court. However, I have a hard time buying that the Trump campaign was "clean." Mueller really made a mistake by allowing Trump to skate on the interview.

I was also thinking about that press conference where Trump asked Russia to find the missing emails, and I went back and examined exactly what was said.  It's close, but not quite.  I don't think there was any agreement between Trump and any particular person (or country).  If instead he had discussed the same with Putin (or some other Russian operative), and Putin agreed to hack the DNC's servers and then had his minions hack the DNC's servers, then yes, that would be a clear case of conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime.  Trump's actions were often deplorable, but just not quite criminal. 

There was so much shady behavior throughout the entire Trump campaign, that it's reasonable to assume that Trump was a bad actor.  The problem has been finding enough evidence to support such a claim beyond a reasonable doubt.  I want to see the full (or minimally redacted) Mueller report to see if he found a substantial amount of evidence, but just not enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high standard.  However, I think it's unlikely that Mueller found something really good, otherwise he wouldn't have cleared Trump on conspiracy.

Trump was never going to sit down for an interview, despite his claims to the public that he really wanted to do the interview, and I doubt that Mueller would have been able to compel it, not after Trump submitted written responses to their questions.  If they couldn't make the case without interviewing Trump in person, then it's likely that their case just wasn't that strong.  I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Trump was just going to admit to a crime in a sit down interview.  People like to claim that Trump is a moron, but if he's as dirty as people think, he's been able to avoid criminal prosecution despite having a very high public profile for many decades now.  And if you are still convinced that he's guilty of conspiracy with Russia, he's been smart enough to evade an indictment from Mueller, who was supposed to be one of the best investigators in the country.

That said, I wish Mueller did try and compel the sit down interview, even if he felt that he'd lose the court fight.  It would have been much better for the investigation to have stretched out to the 2020 elections, than come up empty.  But Mueller wasn't doing this to help one side or another, so no interview.

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...