Koko78 Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I love how having insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of innocence somehow means you're still guilty. These liberals are living in bizzaro world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 3 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: No problemo. Congressional subpoenas are easy to ignore. Just ask Eric Holder. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Nanker said: No problemo. Congressional subpoenas are easy to ignore. Just ask Eric Holder. It’s not this subpoena that concerns Trump. But if Mueller testifies, look out. It’s pretty clear he thought there was obstruction. And if he lays that out in something short of 448 pages in televised soundbytes and America can follow, that would be terrible for Trump. Edited April 19, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 16 minutes ago, Koko78 said: I love how having insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of innocence somehow means you're still guilty. These liberals are living in bizzaro world. ***** them 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said: It’s not this subpoena that concerns Trump. But if Mueller testifies, look out. It’s pretty clear he thought there was obstruction. And if he lays that out in something short of 448 pages in televised soundbytes and America can follow, that would be terrible for Trump. He’s never be convicted by the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Nanker said: He’s never be convicted by the Senate. It will never come to that. The Dems want that testimony for 2020. Edited April 19, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 Shocking, Cuomo doesn't know what he's talking about. 38 minutes ago, Nanker said: He’s never be convicted by the Senate. Mueller won't be good for the dems if he testifies. All it takes to know that is to read the report in context of everything we know about the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, Doc Brown said: This is probably the most accurate take with what I've seen in the report so far. Pretty much every statement or tweet by Trump would make a normal person seem guilty as hell, but Trump's not a normal person. I think this best sums it up. Did Trump try to stop the investigation? Kinda but not really. He ranted and mused about taking actions to stop or limit the investigation but he really didn't follow through with it. Sort of like when you hear something that infuriates you and your immediate reaction is wanting to do something illogical, but then you hold back and not actually follow through with it. This is what allegedly happened on numerous occasions. Did Trump or anyone on his campaign "collude" with the Russians? No. They didn't conspire with any Russian officials to interfere with the elections. Did the Russians attempt to reach out to the Trump campaign? Allegedly yes but to no avail. Were Trump and his team happy to have dirt on Hillary compiled by any Russians to go public to damage her? Yeah, but so what? That's not a crime and in a blood sport profession as politics, dirt that is uncovered no matter the source, no matter how is a welcome event for opposing campaigns. Can you obstruct Justice if there was no underlying crime? Yes. But if you look at the legal definition of Obstruction of Justice: It states: "obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent." Did he try to impede? There definitely are some instances "episodes" that show that he did try or pondered or initially reacted in a manner to want to do so. Ultimately for one reason or another, in just about every "episode", he either didn't follow through, someone from his camp didn't follow through or there are legal loopholes such as the firing of Comey that provide some wiggle room. That's the stronger part of the definition against Trump. Was there corrupt intent? This is the second part of the definition of obstruction of justice and broad and open to interpretation. If you know that you are wrongfully being accused of something and you instigate some dubious actions that "could" be interpreted as attempting to impede justice. Is there any weight that should be applied to the defense of obstructing justice when the accused is first and foremost wrongfully accused and peripherally almost as important that the accused is under withering criticism by the Democrats and their media allies from carrying out his duties as president? Barr attempted to make this point and he was roundly criticized by the usual suspects, but I do believe that is a fair question. I do think this creates a conundrum and the burden of proof becomes that much more difficult. All the evidence and yes it is evidence and some of it pretty damning do strongly suggest that there "could" have been a case for obstruction of evidence in each of the 10 "episodes" that they laid out. Some of the cases as I mentioned earlier are pretty flimsy or potential explanations to absolve him of those allegations but there are others that are pretty straight forward and potentially damaging. But Mueller uses the word "could" in each of the "episodes". Mueller states that he couldn't indict but he could make recommendations and he wasn't shy to definitely stake a position of opinion on numerous occasions. The fact that he used the word "could" says a lot. It says that he could not conclusively prove it. And Mueller also implies in the report on a couple occasions that establishing "intent" is a high bar and that he could not conclusively say one way or the other. Bottom line: Trump and his team did not collude or conspire with the Russians even though they were happy to have information regarding Hillary out in the public that were damaging to her. Again, so what? That's not a crime. Trump initial instincts on many of the things that enraged him were to attempt to stop them. But he rarely followed through or they weren't followed through completely by his team. It's a high threshold to prove which is why there was no recommendation of indictment and Mueller knew that. Lets not forget a few things though. This was a conspiracy and it started with the Democrats and career officials that loathe Trump. He was treated differently which is a kind of way of saying unfairly by the media and some higher level intelligence officials. There should have never been an investigation on Trump. The media is a complete sham, they are dishonest brokers and should be viewed as such. It's not that some of their reporting was wrong, they are human and humans get things wrong. It's that they have an agenda. You would be hard-pressed to find a single media outlet that is able to report strictly the "news", just the news and nothing but the news. Covering politics is a matter of click bait and supplying "news" that only reinforces their viewers confirmation biases. They are just preaching to the choir. And all media outlets are guilty of it. The media was so vested in this collusion narrative which was the whole genesis of this all, they cannot go back and admit that they were wrong. Rather than that, they move the goal posts, bring up some anecdotal instances of potential appearances of impropriety regarding that claim and shamelessly then quickly move on to the the obstruction of justice allegation. Now Democrats have a decision to make, do they give what their progressive/socialist base wants, which is to have endless hearings to build up to impeachment or do they just do some hearings to embarrass Trump further to defeat him in 2020? They'd be wise to go with the latter. I'll end it with that I believe Trump's initial instincts on many of these matters are embarrassing. He lies excessively. He bullies whoever is in his way to get what he needs to get done. They are beneath the dignity of who you would like to represent your country. But none of this rises to level that he conclusively committed a crime pertaining to these matters. And he understandably has some of these recalcitrant reactions. He is not paranoid to think that the media and some from the intelligence communities are out to get him. He is under unfair and withering attack and its non stop. So I don't blame him for lashing out, he just needs to think these things through before he acts because I do believe he has shown that when he does get all the opinions and has had sufficient time to think about things, he tends to make much better decisions. And since now this report/document is now not a criminal matter but a political one and you have an economy is going strong, an ok foreign policy and he's getting lots of originalist judges to the bench, and a Democratic party that is lurching to socialism, he's got better than 50/50 odds of being re elected. Edited April 19, 2019 by Magox 6 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) Well said Magox. I might quibble with you on a few points, in particular in telling McGahn to fire Mueller, he got a lucky save that it didn’t happen. And he may have also gotten a lucky save on some aspects of the ultimately fruitless Trump Tower meeting. But the Dems and the majority of the media, if they had just been able to sit back and say, “Let’s see what the report says” for two years, would be on much firmer ground. They could have applauded the report and its diligence. And then skewered Trump’s conduct. But by continuously trumpeting “conspiracy,” a mantra that Trump baited them to keep up, they screwed themsleves and handed over control of the narrative to Trump, who committed no conspiracy. The final political card the Ds should play before 2020 is to get Mueller to testify. If they get 2 hours of testimony on Volume II, that would be a win. Then don’t impeach. Don’t have more hearings. Let it lie and let the candidates and voters use the report—and the more accessible testimony—to decide Trump’s fate. Having to choose between Trump and a likely socialist will not be pleasant. But I would choose Trump! Edited April 19, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 17 minutes ago, Magox said: I think this best sums it up. Did Trump try to stop the investigation? Kinda but not really. He ranted and mused about taking actions to stop or limit the investigation but he really didn't follow through with it. Sort of like when you hear something that infuriates you and your immediate reaction is wanting to do something illogical, but then you hold back and not actually follow through with it. This is what allegedly happened on numerous occasions. Did Trump or anyone on his campaign "collude" with the Russians? No. They didn't conspire with any Russian officials to interfere with the elections. Did the Russians attempt to reach out to the Trump campaign? Allegedly yes but to no avail. Were Trump and his team happy to have dirt on Hillary compiled by any Russians to go public to damage her? Yeah, but so what? That's not a crime and in a blood sport profession as politics, dirt that is uncovered no matter the source, no matter how is a welcome event for opposing campaigns. Can you obstruct Justice if there was no underlying crime? Yes. But if you look at the legal definition of Obstruction of Justice: It states: "obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent." Did he try to impede? There definitely are some instances "episodes" that show that he did try or pondered or initially reacted in a manner to want to do so. Ultimately for one reason or another, in just about every "episode", he either didn't follow through, someone from his camp didn't follow through or there are legal loopholes such as the firing of Comey that provide some wiggle room. That's the stronger part of the definition against Trump. Was there corrupt intent? This is the second part of the definition of obstruction of justice and broad and open to interpretation. If you know that you are wrongfully being accused of something and you instigate some dubious actions that "could" be interpreted as attempting to impede justice. Is there any weight that should be applied to the defense of obstructing justice when the accused is first and foremost wrongfully accused and peripherally almost as important that the accused is under withering criticism by the Democrats and their media allies from carrying out his duties as president? Barr attempted to make this point and he was roundly criticized by the usual suspects, but I do believe that is a fair question. I do think this creates a conundrum and the burden of proof becomes that much more difficult. All the evidence and yes it is evidence and some of it pretty damning do strongly suggest that there "could" have been a case for obstruction of evidence in each of the 10 "episodes" that they laid out. Some of the cases as I mentioned earlier are pretty flimsy or potential explanations to absolve him of those allegations but there are others that are pretty straight forward and potentially damaging. But Mueller uses the word "could" in each of the "episodes". Mueller states that he couldn't indict but he could make recommendations and he wasn't shy to definitely stake a position of opinion on numerous occasions. The fact that he used the word "could" says a lot. It says that he could not conclusively prove it. And Mueller also implies in the report on a couple occasions that establishing "intent" is a high bar and that he could not conclusively say one way or the other. Bottom line: Trump and his team did not collude or conspire with the Russians even though they were happy to have information regarding Hillary out in the public that were damaging to her. Again, so what? That's not a crime. Trump initial instincts on many of the things that enraged him were to attempt to stop them. But he rarely followed through or they weren't followed through completely by his team. It's a high threshold to prove which is why there was no recommendation of indictment and Mueller knew that. Lets not forget a few things though. This was a conspiracy and it started with the Democrats and career officials that loathe Trump. He was treated differently which is a kind of way of saying unfairly by the media and some higher level intelligence officials. There should have never been an investigation on Trump. The media is a complete sham, they are dishonest brokers and should be viewed as such. It's not that some of their reporting was wrong, they are human and humans get things wrong. It's that they have an agenda. You would be hard-pressed to find a single media outlet that is able to report strictly the "news", just the news and nothing but the news. Covering politics is a matter of click bait and supplying "news" that only reinforces their viewers confirmation biases. They are just preaching to the choir. And all media outlets are guilty of it. The media was so vested in this collusion narrative which was the whole genesis of this all, they cannot go back and admit that they were wrong. Rather than that, they move the goal posts, bring up some anecdotal instances of potential appearances of impropriety regarding that claim and shamelessly then quickly move on to the the obstruction of justice allegation. Now Democrats have a decision to make, do they give what their progressive/socialist base wants, which is to have endless hearings to build up to impeachment or do they just do some hearings to embarrass Trump further to defeat him in 2020? They'd be wise to go with the latter. I'll end it with that I believe Trump's initial instincts on many of these matters are embarrassing. He lies excessively. He bullies whoever is in his way to get what he needs to get done. They are beneath the dignity of who you would like to represent your country. But none of this rises to level that he conclusively committed a crime pertaining to these matters. And he understandably has some of these recalcitrant reactions. He is not paranoid to think that the media and some from the intelligence communities are out to get him. He is under unfair and withering attack and its non stop. So I don't blame him for lashing out, he just needs to think these things through before he acts because I do believe he has shown that when he does get all the opinions and has had sufficient time to think about things, he tends to make much better decisions. And since now this report/document is now not a criminal matter but a political one and you have an economy is going strong, an ok foreign policy and he's getting lots of originalist judges to the bench, and a Democratic party that is lurching to socialism, he's got better than 50/50 odds of being re elected. well said. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 25 minutes ago, Magox said: I think this best sums it up. Did Trump try to stop the investigation? Kinda but not really. He ranted and mused about taking actions to stop or limit the investigation but he really didn't follow through with it. Sort of like when you hear something that infuriates you and your immediate reaction is wanting to do something illogical, but then you hold back and not actually follow through with it. This is what allegedly happened on numerous occasions. I think "kinda" is still a stretch. Seems to me it was more like "Not really...he wanted to, but the people around him prevailed on teaching him the practical limits of the power of the office." Much of the "obstruction" claims coming from the lunatics come down to a misguided belief that mens rea is the sole determination of criminal activity. But you still need a criminal act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Well said Magox. I might quibble with you on a few points, in particular in telling McGahn to fire Mueller, he got a lucky save that it didn’t happen. And he may have also gotten a lucky save on some aspects of the ultimately fruitless Trump Tower meeting. But the Dems and the majority of the media, if they had just been able to sit back and say, “Let’s see what the report says” for two years, would be on much firmer ground. They could have applauded the report and its diligence. And then skewered Trump’s conduct. But by continuously trumpeting “conspiracy,” a narrative Trump baited them to Keep up, they screwed themsleves and handed over control of the narrative to Trump, who committed no conspiracy. The final political card the Ds should play before 2020 is to get Mueller to testify. If they get 2 hours of testimony on Volume II, that would be a win. Then don’t impeach. Don’t have more hearings. Let it lie and let the candidates and voters use the report—and the more accessible testimony—to decide Trump’s fate. Having to choose between Trump and a likely socialist will not be pleasant. But I would choose Trump! The McGahn allegation which I assume is accurate is pretty damning. There are some outs here though but ultimately I also suspect what you describe as luck could have been a saving grace and moving one of his "could"s to an outright accusation of obstruction of justice charge. Quote "On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre." Presumably this means that McGahn pushed back and the president acquiesced. If McGahn had not initially pushed back and actually went through with it, then we'd be talking about a whole new ball game. And if you look at the first sentence, there are some potential conflicts of interest. I will say that the team Mueller assembled definitely had a partisan makeup. Having said that, sometimes as an overall manager you go to your trusted advisers and you say something looking to see if they push back. It appears McGahn pushed back and that was the end of that. Quote "The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle." Lying to the media is unbecoming, deceitful and all that but it's not a crime. And to the second part in questioning why McGahn said what he said to the Special counsel is not a crime either. Interesting that McGahn noted it as "perceived the president to be testing his mettle". Embarrassing for Trump but again, for a variety of reasons doesn't rise to the level of conclusively obstructing justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 55 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I think "kinda" is still a stretch. Seems to me it was more like "Not really...he wanted to, but the people around him prevailed on teaching him the practical limits of the power of the office." Much of the "obstruction" claims coming from the lunatics come down to a misguided belief that mens rea is the sole determination of criminal activity. But you still need a criminal act. Yes, I think much of that happened and a lack of insistence plays into that. But with Lewandowski episode, he left that conversation believing that Lewandowski would speak to Sessions to walk back his recusal. But, asking Sessions to walk back his recusal isn't dispositive of obstructing justice but certainly could be seen as attempting to control the investigation. Again, intent is hard to establish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Magox said: Yes, I think much of that happened and a lack of insistence plays into that. But with Lewandowski episode, he left that conversation believing that Lewandowski would speak to Sessions to walk back his recusal. But, asking Sessions to walk back his recusal isn't dispositive of obstructing justice but certainly could be seen as attempting to control the investigation. Again, intent is hard to establish. I wonder if Sessions would have reached the same conclusion as Barr. I hope so and I’m sure someone will ask him. Whether he will answer though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 19 hours ago, Nanker said: BM please go rob a store and make sure you get a six pack of Mad Dog 4040. I’ll wait for you in the parking lot. We’ll have a good time. You going to do it? No? Did I commit a crime? Asking for a friend. My example was going to be if I decide to shoot my neighbor and climb up on the roof of the building across the street from his work. when he comes out I put my AR15 to my shoulder and aim in and pull the trigger, but <click>, dang, I left my bullets at home. Then I blow off the whole thing and instead decide to challenge him to a bake off. Did I commit a crime? 16 hours ago, DC Tom said: This is why I don't there was collusion with Russia. They didn't need Trump's help and they knew he was too stupid so they knew they would get caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: My example was going to be if I decide to shoot my neighbor and climb up on the roof of the building across the street from his work. when he comes out I put my AR15 to my shoulder and aim in and pull the trigger, but <click>, dang, I left my bullets at home. Then I blow off the whole thing and instead decide to challenge him to a bake off. Did I commit a crime? Really good comparisons to obstruction. Oh no, they are not. Intent to obstruct on many of his lies to America and McGahn not following through on firing Mueller on an actual act where there was intent...are the two things that probably got him off. It was a lot closer than you care to admit. And either way, it does not paint a picture of a stable truthful president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: My example was going to be if I decide to shoot my neighbor and climb up on the roof of the building across the street from his work. when he comes out I put my AR15 to my shoulder and aim in and pull the trigger, but <click>, dang, I left my bullets at home. Then I blow off the whole thing and instead decide to challenge him to a bake off. Did I commit a crime? You're damn straight you did. You TRESPASSED onto the roof of that building! However, Trump was attempting to use others to do his dirty deeds and not acting solo - per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 16 hours ago, Koko78 said: This video just proves that anything set to the Benny Hill theme will make me laugh. It's Yackety Sax by Boots Randolph. Give the man a little cred. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 Just now, BeginnersMind said: Really good comparisons to obstruction. Oh no, they are not. Intent to obstruct on many of his lies to America and McGahn not following through on firing Mueller on an actual act where there was intent...are the two things that probably got him off. It was a lot closer than you care to admit. And either way, it does not paint a picture of a stable truthful president. It portrays the actions of a genuine Alpha Male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Nanker said: It portrays the actions of a genuine Alpha Male. To follow Tom-rhetoric strategy 3.8, “And do you know who else was an Alpha Male?” OCinBuffalo, that’s who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts