The Mueller Investigation
- TheFallen
- Master of Innominate Surquedry
- Posts: 3163
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:16 pm
- Location: Guildford, UK
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Sky agreed. From the little I know, attempting a Constitutional change is nigh on unachievable. Isn't it true that some later Amendments haven't yet been fully ratified by all States? Let alone the decades that it'd probably take to even get a new Amendment to that "now needing individual State ratification" stage.
Having said that, it still doesn't obviate my "don't blame the player, blame the game" point. If it transpires that the US does indeed "have a very different system than it thought it had", then those against that system as finally defined clearly and solely would need to take up cudgels against the Constitution and not the current POTUS, whoever that might be at the time. Doing the latter would be as entirely misdirected as it would be fruitless.
Having said that, it still doesn't obviate my "don't blame the player, blame the game" point. If it transpires that the US does indeed "have a very different system than it thought it had", then those against that system as finally defined clearly and solely would need to take up cudgels against the Constitution and not the current POTUS, whoever that might be at the time. Doing the latter would be as entirely misdirected as it would be fruitless.
Newsflash: the word "irony" doesn't mean "a bit like iron"
Shockingly, some people have claimed that I'm egocentric... but hey, enough about them
"If you strike me down, I shall become far stronger than you can possibly imagine."
_______________________________________________
I occasionally post things here because I am invariably correct on all matters, a thing which is educational for others less fortunate.
Shockingly, some people have claimed that I'm egocentric... but hey, enough about them
"If you strike me down, I shall become far stronger than you can possibly imagine."
_______________________________________________
I occasionally post things here because I am invariably correct on all matters, a thing which is educational for others less fortunate.
- Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25977
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 20 times
mmm.. fair points.
And I know this will be met with outrage .. but ok the system may be unclear and may also be flawed for allowing and enabling questionable outcomes .. but maybe because my thinking is too rigid .. but I cant help but focus on the actor despite that.
Also it grinds my gears to accomodate the possibility nay probability.. that someone can get away with what Trump has and is.
And I know this will be met with outrage .. but ok the system may be unclear and may also be flawed for allowing and enabling questionable outcomes .. but maybe because my thinking is too rigid .. but I cant help but focus on the actor despite that.
Also it grinds my gears to accomodate the possibility nay probability.. that someone can get away with what Trump has and is.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
- Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19672
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
What is he getting away with?Skyweir wrote: Also it grinds my gears to accomodate the possibility nay probability.. that someone can get away with what Trump has and is.
Did it also grind your gears that Hillary got away with committing federal crimes?
TF, the reason we're in an unprecedented situation is because never before has an opposition party tried from Day1 to overturn the results of a Presidential election. Never before have we even entertained the idea of criminalizing Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch. The problem isn't that Trump has gotten away with anything, it's that the Dems want to get rid of him no matter what, and the media has been complicit in convincing the Sheep that Trump has actually done something wrong.
Fuck a sheep running, but that's a messed up situation!
[Like my newly coined phrase? It's a tribute to Vraith's "exclamatory" phrase. ]
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
- Vraith
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 10621
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
- Location: everywhere, all the time
Interesting take. I can even/almost see why say it. BUT:TheFallen wrote: You seem to be saying:-
"Trump is point blank not allowed under the existing laws and constitution of the USA to do some of the things he's done or is doing.
Ergo, he's committing crimes.
Ergo, anyone who says he isn't is clearly in favour of Trump committing crimes.
Ergo, anyone who says he isn't is thus supporting that Trump, the despot in the White House, should be able to do whatever he likes.
Ergo, y'all are vile human beings and y'all can go screw yourselves. I hope y'all die a horrible death."
(Yes, I've somewhat exaggerated that, but hopefully you'll take the point).
1}} This is that actual point of contention, and it involves Trump only to the extent that he is the one doing it now. This argument is AT LEAST 2000 years long in generic terms. In all cases where the idea of absolute powers/unitary executive/other variations "win," the results are NEGATIVE for people/rights/freedom.
...AND the supporters of the interpretation always claim some kind of rational/pure basis, or a structural inviolability...[BET you a billion bucks if it comes to court, the Cons are gonna pretend some bullshit "Originalist" fantasy]...
...but it never IS that. That is wholly an ideological stance. They are literally saying a crime is not a crime depending on WHO is committing it. As you said/cited/commented on elsewhere...if s/he-ANY Pres. can do such, we DO NOT live under the system not only that people THINK we do, but the system we WANT to live under. I've already said that about 50 times.
...The whole thing is a-rational, a-pragmatic, and innately/inherently/unavoidably authoritarian/tyrannical, both in the abstract and the concrete.
2}} Ergo crimes are crimes, they do not become not-crimes due to who does them or why/how.
3}} No Ergo vis a vis [don't know the codes to punctuate that properly] Trump. They're just subscribing to an interpretation that works for them NOW, but not for the system, not for the purpose of the system.
AND, MOST FUCKING IMPORTANT---REFUSING, flat-fucking-out, to recognize that EVERY POWER is subordinate to the SYSTEM that contains it, is INTENDED, in it's entirety to SUPPORT that system, and explicitly NOT to VIOLATE the rules/intentions/purposes/structure OF that system.Others have done similar, even in the U.S.---but not at this scale, not as salient/dangerous. [a few came close, but it didn't matter cuz far less was at stake.]
4}} Yes, they are supporting limited despotism now, and the tools to increase it later. [[I'm not making "slippery slope" claim, I'm making "arming the forces" claim.]]
5}} Ergo your partisan commitments are crushing the value system you claim to desire/uphold. Every single one of these people [gov't people, people with power, general people...etc, since suddenly people here can't distinguish between a "royal" you and a "you, in particular, exactly, personally--Even though they can do/say any general thing themselves]...
Every one of these people KNOW they are trading/allowing a systemic evil for particular [and biased] possible goods.
I don't hope anyone dies a vile death. But I DO hope at least some of the people who CAUSE it have to see the CONSEQUENCES. [[although, maybe not...cuz what good does it do? Most [not all, but most] of the current struggles in the world are due to people like that...yet they're STILL blaming the other side for it.]]
6}} Exaggeration is fine with me, as long as it's funny, or towards a point, or [preferably] both.
All the bold above is false. Total horseshit.ZarSheepSlaughterer wrote: Did it also grind your gears that Hillary got away with committing federal crimes?
TF, the reason we're in an unprecedented situation is because never before has an opposition party tried from Day1 to overturn the results of a Presidential election. Never before have we even entertained the idea of criminalizing Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch. The problem isn't that Trump has gotten away with anything, it's that the Dems want to get rid of him no matter what, and the media has been complicit in convincing the Sheep that Trump has actually done something wrong.
Fuck a sheep running, but that's a messed up situation!
[Like my newly coined phrase? Cool It's a tribute to Vraith's "exclamatory" phrase. ]
The italicized is a little funny.
The underlined...like it? I'm mostly "meh." ...a little derivative and totally misses the point, and otherwise distorts the entire thing [[doesn't distort it as much as claiming undocumented people commit at least 1/4, but maybe more than 1/3rd of murders when it's REALLY not even a tenth of that, or other shit that is lies, fucking lies, and 'Tank linkages that no one ever acknowledges]]...
But HEY, I'l take TRIBUTE!.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
- Obi-Wan Nihilo
- Still Not Buying It
- Posts: 6078
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Well allow me to retort...aliantha wrote:Is Dershowitz a Democrat, really? I wouldn't be so sure. The author of this Politico article says Dershowitz has always been a civil libertarian -- which, in this case, means he's opposing the appointment of the special counsel moreso than supporting Trump. The article is worth reading in full, but here's a section that's pertinent to what we're talking about (emphasis mine):So yeah, just because you've got one lawyer supporting your side, it doesn't mean his opinion is infallible.The second pillar of Dershowitz's argument is more technical, and more controversial: A president cannot be found guilty for exercising his constitutional authority, he argues, and his constitutional authority includes the right to fire anyone in the executive branch, even if that person is investigating him. In his view, President Richard Nixon did not obstruct justice by ordering the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Rather, Dershowitz says, Nixon obstructed justice by telling subordinates to lie to the FBI, by paying hush money to potential witnesses against him, and by destroying evidence. By this logic, Trump could fire Mueller or Rod Rosenstein for any reason without criminally obstructing justice.
Whether Dershowitz is right involves a complex legal argument that can't objectively be resolved. Those who disagree with him, including University of Chicago Law School professors Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner, argue that a president obstructs justice when he interferes with an investigation for a corrupt motive -- which, presumably, would include firing an investigator who might uncover something bad about him. Generally speaking, assessing motive is a dodgy business in the law -- and (former federal judge Nancy) Gertner hastens to point out that firing Comey isn't the only basis for obstruction charges that could be levied against Trump -- but Dershowitz's argument isn't crazy.
What's unclear is why he's making it at all. Almost no legal experts think Trump will face criminal obstruction charges. A sitting president has never been indicted, and a pair of Justice Department legal opinions, from 1973 and 2000, hold that a sitting president cannot be tried or indicted. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger recently argued that there's more wiggle room regarding indictment, and of course the opinions could be revisited, but criminal charges against Trump seem highly unlikely.
So what is the argument about? When TV pundits talk about "obstruction of justice," they're not really talking about the statutorily defined crime. They're using it as a kind of shorthand for attempting to rise above the law -- the kind of thing that might trigger Congress to launch an impeachment proceeding. Arguing that Trump couldn't be impeached for corrupt actions -- as Dershowitz says is also true under certain fact scenarios-is a fundamentally different matter. "This isn't a civil libertarian position," Gertner said. "It's an authoritarian position. If anything, it purports to talk about constitutional power. It isn't Alan's usual bailiwick and in my opinion it is false."
In the West Village, Dershowitz went even further down that path, and argued that the statutory definition of "obstruction of justice" would still be relevant in an impeachment trial, over which the chief justice would preside. Dershowitz argued that the presence of the chief justice at an impeachment trial, and the inclusion of criteria for impeachment in the Constitution, proves that the process is not purely political and that legal standards should still be relevant. In such a proceeding, Dershowitz said the first thing he'd do is to file a motion to dismiss -- in other words, a motion that the alleged conduct did not meet the minimal legal threshold. It's the weakest part of Dershowitz's argument.
"It is inconceivable to me that Chief Justice (John) Roberts would accept an argument that the president is above the law -- more immune than King George was," (former ACLU national legal director Burt) Neuborne told me from Stanford, where he is teaching this semester. "In the real world, the argument wouldn't last five minutes." (Longtime Dershowitz friend Harvey) Silverglate said, "What Trump has done isn't appropriate for criminal charges, but much of what he has done would be grounds for impeachment." Silverglate rejected the notion that somehow the Supreme Court would swoop in and dismiss impeachment charges on legal grounds. "I don't see how a decision to impeach would be subject to judicial review," he said.
"If Alan is right," Neuborne concluded, "then the president is above the law and we have a very different system than we think we have."
My problem with Fox News in general is that it was never meant to be a news network -- not in the sense of traditional journalism, and not in the sense that you guys are thinking of it, either. When Rupert Murdoch started Fox News, he aimed it at a particular demographic -- older, conservative white males -- and created programming that supported their social and political views. He wasn't interested in presenting any semblance of an alternative news operation; he wanted to attract eyeballs for his advertisers. "Fair and balanced" wasn't a description of its content -- it was an advertising slogan.
I mean, it's clearly worked, and kudos to Murdoch for his execution of his idea. But he never gave a shit about the impact of his enterprise on political discourse in America, or even whether he was educating his viewers instead of lying to them; he was ever only in it for the money.
Which brings me to "Fox and Friends." Basically this show is aimed at Trump. They tell him what they think he wants to know. And it works -- Trump is a loyal viewer. He live-tweets it during "executive time," for gods' sake.
And you've gotta admit, he fits squarely in the network's demographic...
In sum, welcome to my argument.
Your specific concerns went to whether the President could be indicted for the exercise of Constitutional powers. As Dershowitz pointed out in the opening sentences of his opinion, and as your article appears to agree, the answer is no. So we can consider that matter resolved by the authorities. I am in complete agreement with Dershowitz on that point. You wanted an authority to address your concerns, and an authority was provided.
Yet as I also stated above I do not fully agree with everything he said in that video. I meant specifically that portion of his opinion that the article quotation you posted is dealing with. As I've stated a number of times already, as I see it the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language is political dicta that cannot be reviewed by the courts (or, is non justiciable). Meaning that the President can be removed for literally anything or nothing if the votes are there in Congress. It is a wholly political process without a subsequent role for the courts. If the House impeaches and the Senate votes to remove, the President is removed.
And that's the real point. The proper check on Presidential malfeasance isn't some prosecutory thrust from the bureaucratic bowels of the Department of Justice that is somehow illegal for the President to quash. The proper check on Presidential malfeasance is for Congress to act on impeachment. And I hope that we both see that now.
The catholic church is the largest pro-pedophillia group in the world, and every member of it is guilty of supporting the rape of children, the ensuing protection of the rapists, and the continuing suffering of the victims.
- Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25977
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 20 times
Nihilo.. good post but and theres always a but
I too hope we see that ... but maybe I missed something but to me I dont see it the same way.
To me the POTUS cannot be imprisoned for exercising his constitutionally appointed powers. To me going down that line, is folly.
Before you all jump the gun with I TOLD YOU SOs .. exercising a power or performing an act, especially a constitutionally kosher act isnt in issue. There are two elements of all questionable behaviour .. the act and the intent behind the act. As Ive been reiterating, the WHY.
You cant convict anyone without the two elements. The why ... or the intent is much harder to prove .. but it is provable.
How? I hear you echoing throughout the Tank
Through spoken words, correspondence, directions given, corroborating witnessed .. ones personal behaviour .. the choices one makes, the actions one takes... contradictory statements made.
My money is on the existence of evidence establishing and proving the WHY.. the intent.
Evidence that Mueller has and that has come from a wide range of sources, a number of them already convicted and sentenced .. and ALREADY ROLLED OVER.
We know plea deals were entered into .. thats common knowledge now.
So each party convicted that entered into a plea deal have provided their piece of intel ... that Mueller has been collecting.
Its no more than a furphy to change the attention of the public to other issues .. or to undermine Muellers credibility, or Cohens or anyone that has information pertinent to the investigation.
And the investigation and mandate is to identify who has facilitated Russian hacking and influence in US electoral process, before, during and after the fact.
Why are you not more concerned about the prospect US individuals .. and particularly in Trumps own campaign team working with a hostile foreign nation?
Thats Muellers key focus and yes hes cleverly and astutely charged and seen the convictions of a number of his Trumps lackies already.
Think about that, for even just a second .. and let that percolate... something Sorus loves doing
Side bar ... Sorus is the freaking witty bomb
Moving along .... Mueller is still compiling his case that relates to his specific mandate. The convictions to date ARE the frosting
Theres a whole cake we havent seen, nor will we see till Mueller has fulfilled his mandate.
Mueller isnt tasked with charging and convicting federal tax fraud ... is he?
No. He is not. Now let that percolate even just for a second.
Right? Are you connecting the dots? The important relevant dots?
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
- Obi-Wan Nihilo
- Still Not Buying It
- Posts: 6078
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
If I'm being honest, I don't see a whole lot there other than a narrative that has been spun out of smoke and mirrors for going on three years. But we'll have to wait and see what the report contains and what its political fallout will entail.Skyweir wrote:
Nihilo.. good post but and theres always a but
I too hope we see that ... but maybe I missed something but to me I dont see it the same way.
To me the POTUS cannot be imprisoned for exercising his constitutionally appointed powers. To me going down that line, is folly.
Before you all jump the gun with I TOLD YOU SOs .. exercising a power or performing an act, especially a constitutionally kosher act isnt in issue. There are two elements of all questionable behaviour .. the act and the intent behind the act. As Ive been reiterating, the WHY.
You cant convict anyone without the two elements. The why ... or the intent is much harder to prove .. but it is provable.
How? I hear you echoing throughout the Tank
Through spoken words, correspondence, directions given, corroborating witnessed .. ones personal behaviour .. the choices one makes, the actions one takes... contradictory statements made.
My money is on the existence of evidence establishing and proving the WHY.. the intent.
Evidence that Mueller has and that has come from a wide range of sources, a number of them already convicted and sentenced .. and ALREADY ROLLED OVER.
We know plea deals were entered into .. thats common knowledge now.
So each party convicted that entered into a plea deal have provided their piece of intel ... that Mueller has been collecting.
Its no more than a furphy to change the attention of the public to other issues .. or to undermine Muellers credibility, or Cohens or anyone that has information pertinent to the investigation.
And the investigation and mandate is to identify who has facilitated Russian hacking and influence in US electoral process, before, during and after the fact.
Why are you not more concerned about the prospect US individuals .. and particularly in Trumps own campaign team working with a hostile foreign nation?
Thats Muellers key focus and yes hes cleverly and astutely charged and seen the convictions of a number of his Trumps lackies already.
Think about that, for even just a second .. and let that percolate... something Sorus loves doing
Side bar ... Sorus is the freaking witty bomb
Moving along .... Mueller is still compiling his case that relates to his specific mandate. The convictions to date ARE the frosting
Theres a whole cake we havent seen, nor will we see till Mueller has fulfilled his mandate.
Mueller isnt tasked with charging and convicting federal tax fraud ... is he?
No. He is not. Now let that percolate even just for a second.
Right? Are you connecting the dots? The important relevant dots?
The catholic church is the largest pro-pedophillia group in the world, and every member of it is guilty of supporting the rape of children, the ensuing protection of the rapists, and the continuing suffering of the victims.
- Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25977
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 20 times
Fair and reasonable reply Nihilo... and I understand that from your perspective.
We will have to maintain a watching brief.
The focus is Muellers mandate and THE purpose of the investigation.
The results to date which have well and truly paid for the Investigation.. are not reflective of its purpose .. they are the consequentual federal crimes which Mueller was authorised to dispatch should he come upon them. Tax fraud, lying etc .. they are representative of the low hanging fruit obligatory charges, serving an essential service in the Investigation .. to enable Muellers access to his fundamental purpose.... tracking back connections between US persons and a hostile foreign nations influence and involvement in the US electoral process.
We will have to maintain a watching brief.
The focus is Muellers mandate and THE purpose of the investigation.
The results to date which have well and truly paid for the Investigation.. are not reflective of its purpose .. they are the consequentual federal crimes which Mueller was authorised to dispatch should he come upon them. Tax fraud, lying etc .. they are representative of the low hanging fruit obligatory charges, serving an essential service in the Investigation .. to enable Muellers access to his fundamental purpose.... tracking back connections between US persons and a hostile foreign nations influence and involvement in the US electoral process.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
- SoulBiter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 9493
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
[url=time.com/5540879/trump-mueller-report-investigation-collusion/This is an interesting article from Time [/url]that describes why the Democrats might be disappointed.
Although I disagree with many things in this article, the thing that sticks out is that what the public thinks Mueller is investigating and will bring forward may be wildly different from reality.If links and or coordination also dont sound like crimes, thats because they arent. While Mueller is directed to charge and prosecute crimes he discovers, his is primarily a counterintelligence investigation not a criminal one the purpose of which is to identify threats to our national security, potentially including the President of the United States and his associates.
- Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25977
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 20 times
Fair comment .. and understandable from some perspectives.
The article is a guessing at what Mueller May or may not have.
And its playing politics.
So lets look at some of the likely crimes that may relate to Muellers investigation ... from what we know so far. My moneys on any or several of the following.
First THE BIG BANANA .. Mueller clearly, given the TORs of his appointment... would be wanting to determine if the crime of Conspiracy has been committed.. you know conspiring with a hostile foreign nation to defraud the US government, to interfere with the US electoral process. Both are illegal, et go crimes.
Then theres the crime of interfering and or violating specific US electoral laws, illegal Er go a crime.
Then theres the crime of obstructing justice .. which I know some of you contest. Nevertheless it is a crime and Mueller will be seeking to prove or exclude it.
Soliciting campaign assistance from a foreign agent is illegal, er go a crime. a crime.
Then theres this
Any of the above are illegal, er go crimes that surely Mueller will be wanting to resolve.
The article is a guessing at what Mueller May or may not have.
And its playing politics.
So lets look at some of the likely crimes that may relate to Muellers investigation ... from what we know so far. My moneys on any or several of the following.
First THE BIG BANANA .. Mueller clearly, given the TORs of his appointment... would be wanting to determine if the crime of Conspiracy has been committed.. you know conspiring with a hostile foreign nation to defraud the US government, to interfere with the US electoral process. Both are illegal, et go crimes.
Then theres the crime of interfering and or violating specific US electoral laws, illegal Er go a crime.
Then theres the crime of obstructing justice .. which I know some of you contest. Nevertheless it is a crime and Mueller will be seeking to prove or exclude it.
Soliciting campaign assistance from a foreign agent is illegal, er go a crime. a crime.
Then theres this
Conspiring to hide campaign activity from the Federal Election Commission or conspiring to hide the activities of a foreign agent from the DOJ is also illegal, er go, a crime.The Federal Election Campaign Act, enshrined in the federal code, prohibits foreign nationals, either directly or indirectly from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value" to a campaign. It also makes it illegal for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation from a foreign national.
Any of the above are illegal, er go crimes that surely Mueller will be wanting to resolve.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
- TheFallen
- Master of Innominate Surquedry
- Posts: 3163
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:16 pm
- Location: Guildford, UK
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Vraith, take a step back a second. You're railing against people apparently "supporting an interpretation".
First off, it doesn't matter a rat's ass who - outside solely of SCOTUS presumably - "supports an interpretation". Either current US Constitutional Law makes it literally impossible for a POTUS to commit a crime by exercising the powers granted to the office of POTUS while carrying out his duties, or it doesn't. It is literally a binary situation - okay one that seems to be somewhat unclear and so may need a SCOTUS decision, but binary nonetheless.
Furthermore, I've seen plenty of people here only "support an interpretation" solely in a sense that they believe the extant rules and framework do in fact make it "literally impossible for a POTUS to commit a crime by exercising the powers granted to the office of POTUS while carrying out his duties".
I've seen plenty of reasoning and citation given to this side of the debate... but not once have I seen anyone "supporting that interpretation" then add "...and that's a really good thing too". Nobody's "supported" that interpretation to that extent.
I can't help feeling again that your actual beef should be with the Constitution itself, on the grounds that it's either unclear enough to allow abusive POTUS overreach or that it does in fact absolutely grant an ability for abusive POTUS overreach.
First off, it doesn't matter a rat's ass who - outside solely of SCOTUS presumably - "supports an interpretation". Either current US Constitutional Law makes it literally impossible for a POTUS to commit a crime by exercising the powers granted to the office of POTUS while carrying out his duties, or it doesn't. It is literally a binary situation - okay one that seems to be somewhat unclear and so may need a SCOTUS decision, but binary nonetheless.
Furthermore, I've seen plenty of people here only "support an interpretation" solely in a sense that they believe the extant rules and framework do in fact make it "literally impossible for a POTUS to commit a crime by exercising the powers granted to the office of POTUS while carrying out his duties".
I've seen plenty of reasoning and citation given to this side of the debate... but not once have I seen anyone "supporting that interpretation" then add "...and that's a really good thing too". Nobody's "supported" that interpretation to that extent.
I can't help feeling again that your actual beef should be with the Constitution itself, on the grounds that it's either unclear enough to allow abusive POTUS overreach or that it does in fact absolutely grant an ability for abusive POTUS overreach.
Newsflash: the word "irony" doesn't mean "a bit like iron"
Shockingly, some people have claimed that I'm egocentric... but hey, enough about them
"If you strike me down, I shall become far stronger than you can possibly imagine."
_______________________________________________
I occasionally post things here because I am invariably correct on all matters, a thing which is educational for others less fortunate.
Shockingly, some people have claimed that I'm egocentric... but hey, enough about them
"If you strike me down, I shall become far stronger than you can possibly imagine."
_______________________________________________
I occasionally post things here because I am invariably correct on all matters, a thing which is educational for others less fortunate.
- Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
Has anyone presented "smoking gun" evidence tying Trump to anything illegal?
Has anyone in Congress decided to impeach Trump despite having the votes to do so?
Has anyone filed criminal charges against Trump?
If the answer to all of these questions is "no" then the Mueller Investigation has been a complete waste of time, manpower, and money despite racking up some lackluster criminal charges. What a farce.
Has anyone in Congress decided to impeach Trump despite having the votes to do so?
Has anyone filed criminal charges against Trump?
If the answer to all of these questions is "no" then the Mueller Investigation has been a complete waste of time, manpower, and money despite racking up some lackluster criminal charges. What a farce.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
- Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25977
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 20 times
Two things .... kudos Hashi on the crazy left thread .. and second this is a straw man .. its imv irrelevant .. and its a jumping of the gun.
You all want proof, charges listed, presented, released, laid
LOL but what Investigation ever does that .. releases all its evidence for public comment and scrutiny .. what investigation divulges its game plan?
Not usual until at the very least the briefs are prepared.
The thing of interest to me is what Mueller knows has discovered to date ... but hes not going to accede to my or your curiosity.
Patience tis a virtue, allegedly
You all want proof, charges listed, presented, released, laid
LOL but what Investigation ever does that .. releases all its evidence for public comment and scrutiny .. what investigation divulges its game plan?
Not usual until at the very least the briefs are prepared.
The thing of interest to me is what Mueller knows has discovered to date ... but hes not going to accede to my or your curiosity.
Patience tis a virtue, allegedly
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
- aliantha
- blueberries on steroids
- Posts: 17865
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
- Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe
Well, no. The point of my post was that *Dershowitz's* answer is no. Other lawyers -- including some of his friends -- don't agree.Cail nihilo wrote:Your specific concerns went to whether the President could be indicted for the exercise of Constitutional powers. As Dershowitz pointed out in the opening sentences of his opinion, and as your article appears to agree, the answer is no.
Liberal lawyers, too, count constitutional experts among their number. And they definitely wouldn't agree.
What I'm trying to tell you is that Fox News uses Dershowitz as an expert because he's good on TV, and because he spouts the kinds of opinions their viewers want to hear.
What I'm suggesting that *you* do is to seek out other opinions and other interpretations of the Constitution, other than what you're seeing on Fox News. Especially if those opinions make you uncomfortable. See if you think their reasoning is sound. See if you think Dershowitz still has the best answer.
Not quite right. The entire process is a court proceeding.Meaning that the President can be removed for literally anything or nothing if the votes are there in Congress. It is a wholly political process without a subsequent role for the courts. If the House impeaches and the Senate votes to remove, the President is removed.
The House plays the role of the grand jury. Its members weigh the evidence and decide whether to impeach the president (or any other Constitutional officer -- members of Congress can be impeached, too). Impeachment is therefore analogous to a grand jury indictment. Then the accusation -- the impeachment -- goes to trial, with the Senate as the jury and, in the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding.
You are correct that there's nowhere to appeal the Senate's decision.
Michael Cohen testified to several this week. He provided the House Intel Committee with a check signed by Trump, reimbursing him for the money Cohen spent to buy Stormy Daniels' silence. That's criminal conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws.Hashi wrote:Has anyone presented "smoking gun" evidence tying Trump to anything illegal?
He also testified that Trump inflated the value of his properties to gain loans, but deflated them to get out of paying higher real estate taxes. And he suggested that the committee talk to Trump's long-time accountant to corroborate those charges.
Also, according to Cohen, Trump knew that Roger Stone was in contact with WikiLeaks and knew there was going to be a dump of Hillary's emails in July 2016. Reportedly, Trump told Mueller in his written responses that he had no idea about any of it. If he did, and if what Cohen testified to is true, then Trump committed perjury.
Granted, that's a lot of ifs, and it's coming from someone who has lied in the past -- although Cohen certainly has nothing to gain by continuing to lie now. But you asked whether anyone has presented "smoking gun" evidence that Trump has committed crimes. The answer to that is yes.
Two members of the House have, in fact, introduced articles of impeachment against Trump. For various politically-motivated reasons, Pelosi has not let them come to a vote. So again, the answer to your question is yes.Hashi wrote:Has anyone in Congress decided to impeach Trump despite having the votes to do so?
No. At the federal level, in regard to the Mueller investigation, the Justice Department appears to be sticking with its policy against indicting a sitting president.Hashi wrote:Has anyone filed criminal charges against Trump?
However, Cohen said during his testimony that he is cooperating with the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York on a separate investigation that hasn't yet been publicly announced. It's not clear whether the target of the investigation is Trump himself, or whether it's his family or the Trump Organization or what.
In short, the Mueller investigation is not a farce. For years, the Trump Organization has operated like a crime family. I suspect Donald Trump is going to discover that running for president was the dumbest, costliest thing he's ever done.
EZ Board Survivor
"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)
https://www.hearth-myth.com/
- Obi-Wan Nihilo
- Still Not Buying It
- Posts: 6078
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
The impeachment process is a wholly political one that is disguised in quasi judicial trappings (see: Nixon v. United States, 506 US 24 (1993)). Even the presiding Chief Justice would be limited to enforcing the Senate's own rules, which could be changed at any moment at the Senate's whim. Without a magistracy to whom appeals can be made on supraordinate points of law and order (i.e., a justiciable question), there is nothing truly judicial about the proceeding. The trappings only serve the purpose of hopefully imposing decorum on the Congress so that Presidents are removed for matters of grave malfeasance rather than mere political expedience, which would be a very bad thing for our Constitution and republic.aliantha wrote:Well, no. The point of my post was that *Dershowitz's* answer is no. Other lawyers -- including some of his friends -- don't agree.Cail nihilo wrote:Your specific concerns went to whether the President could be indicted for the exercise of Constitutional powers. As Dershowitz pointed out in the opening sentences of his opinion, and as your article appears to agree, the answer is no.
Liberal lawyers, too, count constitutional experts among their number. And they definitely wouldn't agree.
What I'm trying to tell you is that Fox News uses Dershowitz as an expert because he's good on TV, and because he spouts the kinds of opinions their viewers want to hear.
What I'm suggesting that *you* do is to seek out other opinions and other interpretations of the Constitution, other than what you're seeing on Fox News. Especially if those opinions make you uncomfortable. See if you think their reasoning is sound. See if you think Dershowitz still has the best answer.
Not quite right. The entire process is a court proceeding.Meaning that the President can be removed for literally anything or nothing if the votes are there in Congress. It is a wholly political process without a subsequent role for the courts. If the House impeaches and the Senate votes to remove, the President is removed.
The House plays the role of the grand jury. Its members weigh the evidence and decide whether to impeach the president (or any other Constitutional officer -- members of Congress can be impeached, too). Impeachment is therefore analogous to a grand jury indictment. Then the accusation -- the impeachment -- goes to trial, with the Senate as the jury and, in the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding.
You are correct that there's nowhere to appeal the Senate's decision.
Perhaps it is possible to imagine a Chief Justice refusing to participate in a truly jaundiced impeachment, or resigning in protest, yet even there the net result would remain political rather than truly judicial.
But maybe we are splitting hairs.
To your apparent belief that the DoJ can autonomously indict the President in Federal court, perhaps you should reread your supplied quotation:
Again, I didn't supply the quote, you did.What's unclear is why he's making it at all. Almost no legal experts think Trump will face criminal obstruction charges. A sitting president has never been indicted, and a pair of Justice Department legal opinions, from 1973 and 2000, hold that a sitting president cannot be tried or indicted. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger recently argued that there's more wiggle room regarding indictment, and of course the opinions could be revisited, but criminal charges against Trump seem highly unlikely.
So what is the argument about? When TV pundits talk about "obstruction of justice," they're not really talking about the statutorily defined crime. They're using it as a kind of shorthand for attempting to rise above the law -- the kind of thing that might trigger Congress to launch an impeachment proceeding.
As for the rhetorical use of authority, though it has its uses in resolving controversies about basic facts, it has never been an interest of mine to propound my opinions as though they are not my opinions. I am more interested in elucidating the arguments behind those opinions in a way that is possibly persuasive, but more importantly likely to lead to mutual edification. That is what I aspire to, which is to understand and to learn on my own terms, and to spread that learning to the willing.
So your request for authority was met merely as a courtesy so that you would hopefully become better informed about the consensus view, not as the disclosure of the source of my thinking. I happen to share Dershowitz' thinking on the issue of the indictability of the President based on his official conduct. And apparently that is not a rare opinion in the legal community. But my opinion is based on my personal philosophy informed by the education and experience I have acquired in reading and thinking about these issues over my lifetime. That is the source of my thought here, and I'm fully prepared to defend that thought to anyone including all the authorities should they be interested in challenging it.
The catholic church is the largest pro-pedophillia group in the world, and every member of it is guilty of supporting the rape of children, the ensuing protection of the rapists, and the continuing suffering of the victims.
- Vraith
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 10621
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
- Location: everywhere, all the time
TheFallen wrote:Vraith, take a step back a second. You're railing against people apparently "supporting an interpretation".
First off, it doesn't matter a rat's ass who - outside solely of SCOTUS presumably - "supports an interpretation".
I can't help feeling again that your actual beef should be with the Constitution itself, on the grounds that it's either unclear enough to allow abusive POTUS overreach or that it does in fact absolutely grant an ability for abusive POTUS overreach.
It does matter who supports an interpretation.
For instance DOJ SAYS can't indict--but those statements are no based on law or constitution. There are many other ways it matters. But lets go a little away to show why people who support the "He can't break the rules by using a power." aren't only making a "that's how it is" but also "and it's good." [[so-so analogy coming]]
Suppose you see the equation x squared=4. What's the solution? plus or minus 2. But suppose it CAN'T be both, because you're not doing abstract pure math, you're talking about real instantiated results/impacts....whatever those impacts, if you choose one [say -2] you aren't choosing it BECAUSE it is true/correct/right ANSWER. You are choosing it cuz you approve the OUTCOME...in other words ideology/politics/preferences, not fact/truth.
-----evidence supports that because many, if not all, those who are NOW saying "it's his power, inviolate" USED to say "Obama is violating the Constitution." and a few have been around long enough that they previously said "Bush has the power, he's the Pres." [[[there are a few Dem's who've done the same sort of fish-flopping. Nowhere near as many or often or about an issue nearly as important, here and in the future, but they have. They flip and flounder in part cuz get what you can while the gettin is good...but they ALSO, in their SANE moments, realize what a total cluster-shitting-fuck-storm we'd be in if any Pres. REALLY decided to use the powers the way this school says they can. Ask for it, if you want, I'll tell you tale on what/how that requires NOTHING to happen except a fuckwad like Trump to enact. Cuz it LITERALLY only requires him to "be himself."]]
BUT:
The better answer is: what PROBLEM are you applying the equation TOO? What context does the question/equation exist in? If "X" is the number of apple seeds you have and you're trying to figure how many trees you get, and squared is the ratio/production level...negative 2 isn't simply wrong, it's nonsense.
The power is embedded IN the Constitution. Both the power and the Office of Pres. itself EXIST to stop abuses like gov't "legally" committing crimes.
There may, in fact, be a need for SCOTUS ruling. Many problems with that---they fucking defer to Pres even when know it's wrong most of the damn time. They defer to illusory abstracts just as often. Both are bad tendencies in this case.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
- Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
I would not advise anyone to wait on the edge of their seat for indictments against Trump.aliantha wrote:Granted, that's a lot of ifs, and it's coming from someone who has lied in the past -- although Cohen certainly has nothing to gain by continuing to lie now. But you asked whether anyone has presented "smoking gun" evidence that Trump has committed crimes. The answer to that is yes.
Two members of the House have, in fact, introduced articles of impeachment against Trump. For various politically-motivated reasons, Pelosi has not let them come to a vote. So again, the answer to your question is yes.
In short, the Mueller investigation is not a farce. For years, the Trump Organization has operated like a crime family. I suspect Donald Trump is going to discover that running for president was the dumbest, costliest thing he's ever done.
On the impeachment question...I suspect that an actual impeachment hearing will not take place--too many seats which flipped red-to-blue might find themselves flipping back to red as Trump supporters get whipped into a frenzy over impeachment. Besides, they'll never get a conviction in the Senate so impeaching Trump will be as pointless as Clinton's impeachment was.
It is funny that you mention the Trump family being like a crime family. Let's see...Trump made his name dealing in real estate in New York City. There is no way you attain any sort of success there without either dealing with, or becoming, a crime family.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
- TheFallen
- Master of Innominate Surquedry
- Posts: 3163
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:16 pm
- Location: Guildford, UK
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Okay, I'll even add the DOJ in to the long list of people and/or bodies whose interpretation PRAGMATICALLY might matter in this. That takes the list now up to a massive total of two., namely SCOTUS and the DOJ...Vraith wrote:TheFallen wrote:Vraith, take a step back a second. You're railing against people apparently "supporting an interpretation".
First off, it doesn't matter a rat's ass who - outside solely of SCOTUS presumably - "supports an interpretation".
I can't help feeling again that your actual beef should be with the Constitution itself, on the grounds that it's either unclear enough to allow abusive POTUS overreach or that it does in fact absolutely grant an ability for abusive POTUS overreach.
It does matter who supports an interpretation.
For instance DOJ SAYS can't indict--but those statements are no based on law or constitution.
Everyone else's interpretation is nothing more than hot air, purely practically speaking... such interpretations will not - and in fact cannot - change anything at all.
And I absolutely get that you can probably make a case for hypocrisy and double standards potentially being applied by some here - on the basis of (as you say) the rules being just fine and dandy when the right guy is in power, but utterly disastrous when the wrong guy's in power. I suppose for you to do so is reasonable - but I imagine that knife cuts very firmly both ways in equal measures. And again, if any Pres decides to use the powers under discussion, it won't be because any "school" here or anywhere else says he/she can. The opinion/interpretation of literally anyone outside of SCOTUS and maybe just maybe the DOJ as well is completely irrelevant. Everyone else's interpretation is not in the slightest way an enabling factor in this. Everyone else's acquiescence wouldn't enable any more than everyone else's disagreement would prevent.Vraith wrote:-----evidence supports that because many, if not all, those who are NOW saying "it's his power, inviolate" USED to say "Obama is violating the Constitution." and a few have been around long enough that they previously said "Bush has the power, he's the Pres." [[[there are a few Dem's who've done the same sort of fish-flopping. Nowhere near as many or often or about an issue nearly as important, here and in the future, but they have. They flip and flounder in part cuz get what you can while the gettin is good...but they ALSO, in their SANE moments, realize what a total cluster-shitting-fuck-storm we'd be in if any Pres. REALLY decided to use the powers the way this school says they can.
(As a matter of interest, were you also personally singing the entire opposite tune from your current one when Obama was in the White House? For example, re one event that immediately comes to mind, did you/would you defend Obama's ordering the execution of an American citizen on foreign soil without any prior due process whatsoever? I'd hope so if you're to maintain consistency - since that seems to me a much more flagrant example of abusive presidential overreach - and a blatantly anti-Constitutional one at that, rather than merely criminal - than anything Trumpish done so far)
But actually, apart from potentially proving double standards on the part of some here in the Tank, practically speaking, what else do you think your quite possibly righteous ire can achieve?
To me the answer seems to be "absolutely nothing" - you appear to agree that the only people who could rule upon the current interpretation of the extant system in play and interpret/redefine it in a way that was less pernicious and less allowing of the potential for abuse is SCOTUS... and then you go on to point out (probably quite accurately) that they mostly tend to duck massively big issues such as this.
So to be completely brutally pragmatic on this, my take remains:-
1. Don't blame the player, blame the game.
2. Ergo, campaign for getting the game changed by those very few who could change it.
3. Or, if you're already convinced that those very few who could change the game in fact just won't, you might as well stop wasting your breath and suck it up instead. It is what it is.
4. Or I suppose you could always look to start a revolution with a view to overthrowing the current system or something?
Depressingly bleak, but still, absolutely realistic, no?
As an aside, I've always thought the whole ability for POTUSes to stack the SCOTUS deck with lifetime (fuckin' lifetime? What's with that?) appointees - provided that SC justices die at a convenient time - to be the absolute weirdest ass element of the US system and one that makes precisely no sense - but that's a whole nother thread.
Newsflash: the word "irony" doesn't mean "a bit like iron"
Shockingly, some people have claimed that I'm egocentric... but hey, enough about them
"If you strike me down, I shall become far stronger than you can possibly imagine."
_______________________________________________
I occasionally post things here because I am invariably correct on all matters, a thing which is educational for others less fortunate.
Shockingly, some people have claimed that I'm egocentric... but hey, enough about them
"If you strike me down, I shall become far stronger than you can possibly imagine."
_______________________________________________
I occasionally post things here because I am invariably correct on all matters, a thing which is educational for others less fortunate.