ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , lying charges , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections , US-Russia relations , vladimir putin

Reply
Old Yesterday, 09:12 AM   #1241
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,017
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Are you sure that (1) and (2) are necessary conditions of obstruction? I haven't heard that, and it doesn't appear in the relevant text (18 U.S.C. 1512).
Probably not exactly true. It might be enough to suspect that there was a crime, and impede the investigation into it.

The point is that motive matters. It has to be a malicious or corrupt act. Merely taking some action that hinders an investigation is not obstruction of justice. There's a whole lot of wishful thinking going on among people who think that the information available in the public sphere today is adequate for an obstruction charge.

I looked into 18 USC 1512, and I can't see how to apply anything at all in that statute. I suppose people might be keying on section c, which is basically a catch all for anything they didn't think of, but it begins with "corruptly". You have to prove corruption. If everything went down in the manner described in my hypothetical, there's no corruption, hence no charge.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:34 AM   #1242
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 60,383
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No not associated with, but in the Trump campaign. The two things are quite different.
Fox used the "associated with" wording last night. The dishonesty of the wording was glaring.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:38 AM   #1243
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 60,383
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
....

I looked into 18 USC 1512, and I can't see how to apply anything at all in that statute. I suppose people might be keying on section c, which is basically a catch all for anything they didn't think of, but it begins with "corruptly". You have to prove corruption. If everything went down in the manner described in my hypothetical, there's no corruption, hence no charge.
Corruption you say?

Trump Organization isn't tracking profits from foreign governments: report
Quote:
MSNBC reported Wednesday a pamphlet from the company says the Trump Organization doesn't "attempt to identify travelers who have not specifically identified themselves as being a representative of a foreign government entity."

The pamphlet also says the Trump Organization plans to estimate profits from foreign governments, instead of calculating them.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:40 AM   #1244
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,196
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Fox used the "associated with" wording last night. The dishonesty of the wording was glaring.
Max Boot has a good piece on how Fox News has allowed itself to become a sensationalist information weapon for the Kremlin.

Quote:
These spurious insinuations have been put forward (before being largely recanted) by a sometime Fox News contributor named Rod Wheeler. Never mind that Rich’s family, the Washington police force, CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, among others, have debunked these conspiracy theories, showing there is no evidence that Rich was a WikiLeaks source, much less that his murder has anything to do with the stolen Democratic Party emails. Sean Hannity, one of the last of the old guard hired by Ailes to rule prime time, nevertheless devoted three separate segments of his show last week to the “DNC murder mystery.” On Sunday morning, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was pushing the same allegation about Rich’s “assassination” on Fox & Friends. Lou Dobbs has spouted these theories on Fox Business Network, too.

...

The Russians have tipped their hand — and Fox’s as well. Hannity, Gingrich, and Dobbs are in overdrive selling the phony Seth Rich scandal because they think it will distract attention from the real scandals of Donald Trump. The president faces a special counsel investigation and the prospect of impeachment, in part because he keeps bragging about obstructing justice. Trump is reported to have told the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador to the United States in an Oval Office meeting, “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job.… I faced great pressure because of*Russia. That’s taken off,” adding, “I’m not under investigation.” Unable to defend Trump on the merits, the Fox crew wants to absolve him — and his helpers in the Kremlin — by concocting an elaborate fantasy. Hannity had the temerity to tweet: “If Seth was wiki source, no Trump/Russia collusion.”

...

That was a laudable ambition, but what Fox has become is far from laudable. Not only is it a toxic workplace where the harassment of women is rampant; it is also a no-fact zone. The Pulitzer Prize-winning website PolitiFact found that nearly 60 percent of the statements it checked on Fox News were either mostly or entirely false. Another 19 percent were only half true. Only Fox News viewers are likely to believe that climate change is a hoax, that there is a “war on Christmas,” that Obamacare would create “death panels,” that there is an epidemic of crime committed by immigrants (they actually have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans), that President Barack Obama forged his birth certificate and wiretapped Trump with the aid of Britain’s signals intelligence agency, and that the accusations bedeviling Trump are a product of “Russophobia.” FNC might as well stand for Fake News Channel, and its myths have had a pernicious, indeed debilitating, effect on U.S. politics.

...

There is now a conveyer belt spreading Russian disinformation that originates with RT and Sputnik — the former being Kremlin-funded and the latter an official Kremlin organ — and then makes it way to our shores via extremist websites such as Breitbart and InfoWars, before being presented to middle America by Fox. The irony is rich: Roger Ailes, who got his start in politics working for the old Red-hunter, Richard Nixon, created a news channel that now serves as a de facto information weapon for the Kremlin.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:25 AM   #1245
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,632
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Probably not exactly true. It might be enough to suspect that there was a crime, and impede the investigation into it.

The point is that motive matters. It has to be a malicious or corrupt act. Merely taking some action that hinders an investigation is not obstruction of justice. There's a whole lot of wishful thinking going on among people who think that the information available in the public sphere today is adequate for an obstruction charge.

I looked into 18 USC 1512, and I can't see how to apply anything at all in that statute. I suppose people might be keying on section c, which is basically a catch all for anything they didn't think of, but it begins with "corruptly". You have to prove corruption. If everything went down in the manner described in my hypothetical, there's no corruption, hence no charge.
To be sure, impeachment doesn't require a proof that a law was broken at all.

Mind, I'm not saying that impeachment is likely at present.

ETA: I'm not sure that the above is relevant to your point, now that I think about it. You were merely disputing whether it was obvious that Trump obstructed.

Last edited by phiwum; Yesterday at 10:28 AM.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:44 AM   #1246
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,196
GOP operative in Florida received hacked data from Russia.

Quote:
The hacking spree that upended the presidential election wasn’t limited to Democratic National Committee memos and Clinton-aide emails posted on websites. The hacker also privately sent Democratic voter-turnout analyses to a Republican political operative in Florida named Aaron Nevins.

Learning that hacker “Guccifer 2.0” had tapped into a Democratic committee that helps House candidates, Mr. Nevins wrote to the hacker to say: “Feel free to send any Florida based information.”

Ten days later, Mr. Nevins received 2.5 gigabytes of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee documents, some of which he posted on a blog called HelloFLA.com that he ran using a pseudonym.

Soon after, the hacker sent a link to the blog article to Roger Stone, a longtime informal adviser to then-candidate Donald Trump, along with Mr. Nevins’ analysis of the hacked data.

Mr. Nevins confirmed his exchanges after The Wall Street Journal identified him first as the operator of the HelloFLA blog and then as the recipient of the stolen DCCC data. The Journal also reviewed copies of exchanges between the hacker and Mr. Nevins. That the obscure blog had received hacked Democratic documents was previously known, but not the extent of the trove or the blogger’s identity
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:46 AM   #1247
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,677
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
And Max Boot is not exactly a Liberal.
I am a fan of Boot..he has written some of the best Military history in recent years.

As for Fox becoming a tool of the Kremlin:

"Treason Never Prospers
And What's the Reason?
For if Treason Prospers
None Dare Call It Treason"
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:48 AM   #1248
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,677
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
To be sure, impeachment doesn't require a proof that a law was broken at all.

Mind, I'm not saying that impeachment is likely at present.

ETA: I'm not sure that the above is relevant to your point, now that I think about it. You were merely disputing whether it was obvious that Trump obstructed.
Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing the Secretary of War without the permission of Congress (the technical charge was "Abuse of Power");something in no way a criminal offense.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:55 AM   #1249
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 62,101
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing the Secretary of War without the permission of Congress (the technical charge was "Abuse of Power");something in no way a criminal offense.
If memory serves, isn't that exactly what Congress wanted? Or am I mixing up my events?
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:12 PM   #1250
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,677
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
If memory serves, isn't that exactly what Congress wanted? Or am I mixing up my events?
Johnson, because of long term disagreement with Edward Stanton over Reconsrtuction Policy in the South, fired Stanton. The Radical Republicans in Congress, who hated Johnson, were looking for an excuse to impeach him and claimed that Johnson 's firing of Stanton was an abuse of power;that he needed the approval of congress to fire a cabinent member. Johnson was impeached, but not convicted of the charge.
Nowdays it is very much established that although the President needs congressional approval of Cabinent members, once they are approved and appointed, they serve at the President's Pleasure, and can be fired at any time.
Only problem legally would be if something like obstruction of justice was involved.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:18 PM   #1251
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 62,101
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Johnson, because of long term disagreement with Edward Stanton over Reconsrtuction Policy in the South, fired Stanton. The Radical Republicans in Congress, who hated Johnson, were looking for an excuse to impeach him and claimed that Johnson 's firing of Stanton was an abuse of power;that he needed the approval of congress to fire a cabinent member. Johnson was impeached, but not convicted of the charge.
Nowdays it is very much established that although the President needs congressional approval of Cabinent members, once they are approved and appointed, they serve at the President's Pleasure, and can be fired at any time.
Only problem legally would be if something like obstruction of justice was involved.
Ok so I was remembering correctly.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:15 PM   #1252
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,017
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
To be sure, impeachment doesn't require a proof that a law was broken at all.

Mind, I'm not saying that impeachment is likely at present.

ETA: I'm not sure that the above is relevant to your point, now that I think about it. You were merely disputing whether it was obvious that Trump obstructed.
Ultimately, impeachment is a purely political process. If you get the votes, you get a new president. The reason is a formality.

However, the constitution contains the clause "high crimes and misdemeanors", and that has created a kind of strong oral tradition that a president ought to be thrown out if and only if a crime has been committed. In addition, the language of the constitution uses the language of trials and convictions. I would be amazed to see a president, any president, impeached and convicted for anything other than a crime.

Perhaps I could see it for a blatantly unconstitutional abuse of power which is, nevertheless, not a crime. Perhaps an act of war which was incredibly unpopular, and with no congressional consultation might do it. I don't think that's a crime, but it would be an overreach of power. However, there has to be two components. It has to be unconstitutional, and it has to be unpopular. It's hard to get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with overturning an election.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:22 PM   #1253
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,196
The Senate Intel Cmte has voted to give "blanket authority" to Burr and Warner to issue subpoenas in the Russia probe.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:31 PM   #1254
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,879
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
The works of Martin Luther King. You had me going there for a moment, which shows what things have come to.
Doh_! I thought it was rather rude of him LOL.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg silly me 10.jpg (76.9 KB, 3 views)
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:33 PM   #1255
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,244
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Ultimately, impeachment is a purely political process. If you get the votes, you get a new president. The reason is a formality.

However, the constitution contains the clause "high crimes and misdemeanors", and that has created a kind of strong oral tradition that a president ought to be thrown out if and only if a crime has been committed. In addition, the language of the constitution uses the language of trials and convictions. I would be amazed to see a president, any president, impeached and convicted for anything other than a crime.

Perhaps I could see it for a blatantly unconstitutional abuse of power which is, nevertheless, not a crime. Perhaps an act of war which was incredibly unpopular, and with no congressional consultation might do it. I don't think that's a crime, but it would be an overreach of power. However, there has to be two components. It has to be unconstitutional, and it has to be unpopular. It's hard to get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with overturning an election.
Wrong. Specifics weren't included in the Constitution because everybody at the time knew what "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant (a catch-all for anything from bedding a foreign leader's wife to murdering the Senate majority leader during a joint session of Congress). It was intended to be vague so that Congress could retain the power to remove a President who according to their judgment was doing more harm than good. It's the check.
__________________
Never let anyone forget that the American people elected a rapist to be their president. President Rapist is the only name that should be used when referring to this evil narcissist.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:36 PM   #1256
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,842
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Johnson, because of long term disagreement with Edward Stanton over Reconsrtuction Policy in the South, fired Stanton. The Radical Republicans in Congress, who hated Johnson, were looking for an excuse to impeach him and claimed that Johnson 's firing of Stanton was an abuse of power;that he needed the approval of congress to fire a cabinent member. Johnson was impeached, but not convicted of the charge.
Nowdays it is very much established that although the President needs congressional approval of Cabinent members, once they are approved and appointed, they serve at the President's Pleasure, and can be fired at any time.
Only problem legally would be if something like obstruction of justice was involved.
The FBI director is not a part of the cabinet and does not serve at the pleasure of the President. He serves a ten year term and while he can be fired by the President, this only the second time it has happened. But that time it wasn't because he refused to halt an investigation it was because of numerous ethics violations.

A Justice Department report from January 1993 stated that Sessions routinely used FBI planes and cars and staff time for personal use. Ordered his bodyguards to fly a load of firewood from New York to Washington, D.C., commissioned FBI technicians to build a $22,500 cabinet for his office, and would fly to Los Angeles, Calif., once a year on FBI an plane to watch his daughter’s professional ballet performances.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:52 PM   #1257
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,017
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Wrong. Specifics weren't included in the Constitution because everybody at the time knew what "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant (a catch-all for anything from bedding a foreign leader's wife to murdering the Senate majority leader during a joint session of Congress). It was intended to be vague so that Congress could retain the power to remove a President who according to their judgment was doing more harm than good. It's the check.
Sigh.

I don't know if you noticed this, but other than the "wrong", nothing you said contradicts anything I said. So congratulations. You are correct. That is usually the case when people agree with me. People should do it more often.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:11 PM   #1258
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,463
This concerns me because I just have to wonder what crazy thing he's going to have to do now to get it off the front pages. Undoubtedly blow something up real good. Like North Korea.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:32 PM   #1259
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,196
Jared Kushner Now Under FBI Scrutiny in Russia Probe, Say Officials

Quote:
Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and one of his senior advisers, has come under FBI scrutiny in the Russia investigation, multiple U.S. officials told NBC News.

Investigators believe Kushner has significant information relevant to their inquiry, officials said. That does not mean they suspect him of a crime or intend to charge him.

The FBI's scrutiny of Kushner places the bureau's sprawling counterintelligence and criminal investigation not only on the doorstep of the White House, but on the cusp of the Trump family circle. The Washington Post first reported last week that a senior White House official close to Trump was a "person of interest," but did not name the person. The term "person of interest" has no legal meaning.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:57 PM   #1260
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
There's always an out, isn't there?
Question is, is it a reasonable explanation? Or do we hang them on a technicality? Which better serves reason... and which better serves partisanship?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:57 PM   #1261
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,867
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You're adorably naive.

That's a funny way to spell ...

Oh, nevermind.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:58 PM   #1262
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I love it: Trump gave the Pope the works of Martin Luther (Protestant Reformist) and the Pope gave Trump a tract on the Dangers of Global Warming.
If that's true, it's a thing of beauty
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:00 PM   #1263
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Pretty sure Trump is no naive non-participant. He has a history of likely being involved in Russian money laundering, and there've been rumors he has had interactions with the Mafia, Trump is no newbie when it comes to shady business deals.
he has a history of likely....
there have been rumors...

I do so love speculation being presented as evidence.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:01 PM   #1264
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
The works of Martin Luther King. You had me going there for a moment, which shows what things have come to.
Oh now I'm sad. It's not nearly as funny that way.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:40 PM   #1265
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 5,304
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
This concerns me because I just have to wonder what crazy thing he's going to have to do now to get it off the front pages. Undoubtedly blow something up real good. Like North Korea.

Well, the good news is... a little birdie told me we have a couple of subs in the region.

I wonder what fool leaked that bit of military intel.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:46 PM   #1266
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 5,304
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
he has a history of likely....
there have been rumors...

I do so love speculation being presented as evidence.

Besides the repeated interactions between Trump insiders and the two banks known for Russian laundering (eg. Cyprus)... there's that insane $50 million profit on Trump's derelict Florida property sale to the Russian "Fertilizer King", at the height of the housing/property recession in '08/'09 no less.

If anyone digs into that eventually, and there are records of laundering... it's gonna bite him in the ass.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

Last edited by Jim_MDP; Yesterday at 04:49 PM.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:57 PM   #1267
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,677
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The FBI director is not a part of the cabinet and does not serve at the pleasure of the President. He serves a ten year term and while he can be fired by the President, this only the second time it has happened. But that time it wasn't because he refused to halt an investigation it was because of numerous ethics violations.

A Justice Department report from January 1993 stated that Sessions routinely used FBI planes and cars and staff time for personal use. Ordered his bodyguards to fly a load of firewood from New York to Washington, D.C., commissioned FBI technicians to build a $22,500 cabinet for his office, and would fly to Los Angeles, Calif., once a year on FBI an plane to watch his daughter’s professional ballet performances.
But the FBI Director still serves at the "Pleasure Of The President". Trump had the power to fire him. There is no debate about that.
The question becomes why did Trump fire him and this is where the Obstruction of Justice issue arises.
And the last paragraph really has little to do with the issue at hand. I don't like Sessions any more then you do,but digging up some pretty penny ante stuff does not serve much of a purpose.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:18 PM   #1268
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Yeah but with everyone lying their asses off it looks so fake, you know? Almost like they don't want anyone knowing about their perfectly innocent exchanges with former Soviet officials. If it's that innocent, let them be - but why does it look like everyone is lying their asses off?
To some extent, it looks like everyone is lying their asses off because we're being told that they're lying their asses off. We're being told that Sessions lied on his security review. We aren't being told that Sessions was advised that he was not required to list everything on his security review. The framing has a lot to do with the perception here.

The media is in business to make money - they aren't a public service. Drama pays. The more dramatic a headline, the more likely it will get read, the more likely it gets referenced, the more money they make. News outlets aren't non-profits.

A headline of "Sessions Lied on His Review!" gets a lot more attention than "Sessions was advised to not include some meetings that may merit a second look".

Bear in mind that this is also a very one-sided approach. At the moment, Trump and anyone associated with him in any fashion is on a media hit list. A very large number of Americans are very unhappy that he won the election - I don't think this is in doubt, do you? Nobody is asking how many people on Clinton's campaign had contact with Russian or Chinese or Middle-Eastern officials during the course of her campaign. Nobody is digging in to see if any of the Democrats that she might have considered for cabinet potentially had undisclosed contacts in their reviews of a similar nature. There's no benchmark for this. There's no baseline of what is within the normal range, so every event seems (or is made to seem) like a big deal.

It's similar, in a way, to the attention heaped on autism, and the apparent rise in autism rates since vaccinations became commonplace. Yes, if all you look at is autism diagnosis rates, they seem to correlate well with vaccinations. But if you also look at other diagnoses, you see something different.

Everyone is looking really hard for anything that could throw a wrench into Trump's tenure as president. And if you look hard enough, you will find something. Like I said before, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'll be able to find a tie between me and the Russian government too. That doesn't mean it's material or even unusual. But if you look, you'll probably find it.

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I don't know if DJT's action amount to obstruction at this point. That might be a legal question, a historical question or just a question of the prevailing mood. When the President of the United States of America says, "I hope you can drop this," does he means,

- "Drop the investigation"?
- "I hope you can drop the investigation"
- "I'm asking you to drop the investigation"
- "I'm threatening you with some harm unless you drop the investigation?"

That's not even all the possibilities and it looks like obstruction of justice to my untrained eye when combined with other things said by Trump, Kushner, Sessions, Flynn et al.

Is it a rhetorical device? Is it suborning perjury? Is it a veiled threat? No one really knows. Yet.
No, we don't know... but there's plenty of people willing to string them all together and wrap a story around them that 'suggests' that there 'may be' some 'potential' collusion. It's a possibility... but that possibility is being treated as a foregone conclusion. If you've already been told that there is wrongdoing, then every denial looks like a cover-up.

We've been told over and over that Trump asked the FBI to drop the investigation. We've been told this in a context that implies that it was an inappropriate thing for Trump to do. We've been told this in a way that suggests that Trump was threatening Comey. But there are many, many, many possible situations where that phrase may have been uttered. We haven't been given the context, we haven't been given the entirety of the discussion, or even the surrounding sentences. We've been given only the one sentence out of context, with strong implication of what Trump meant by it.

Consider that it could also have gone as follows:

T: You've been digging in to this for months now, and you haven't found anything on me, right?
C: Correct.
T: You know this is making it almost impossible for me to do my job. I can't get anything done, because I've got the news hounding me about this non-stop.
C: I know, sir.
T: Since you don't have anything on me, can you drop the investigation so I can get on with my life and maybe actually get some Presidenting done?
C: As soon as we finish up these next few bits, I'll consider it.

Of course, I don't think it was necessarily as polite as that, nor as eloquent. I understand full well that it very well could have been Trump threatening or implying a threat. But it also could have been benign. Without the context, we have no way to know what was intended.

This is my biggest frustration with this. I don't like Trump. I am not a supporter of Trump. But I am a supporter of objectivity and reason. I am also a supporter of innocent until proven guilty. And I'm a supporter of fact. The volume of shockingly transparent speculation and rampant spin involved in anything and everything related to Trump is appalling. There may very well be some real meat in there, but there's so much garnish and decoration that I can't even see the actual plate.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:21 PM   #1269
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Without evidence to the contrary I assume he meant what he said rather than what you say he said.
Okay. What does "involved in" mean?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:26 PM   #1270
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
Besides the repeated interactions between Trump insiders and the two banks known for Russian laundering (eg. Cyprus)... there's that insane $50 million profit on Trump's derelict Florida property sale to the Russian "Fertilizer King", at the height of the housing/property recession in '08/'09 no less.
Six degrees of Kevin Bacon

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
If anyone digs into that eventually, and there are records of laundering... it's gonna bite him in the ass.
IF.

Speculation.

IF he ends up being a secret chinese spy who has been brainwashed by aliens, that's totally going to bite him in the ass!
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:27 PM   #1271
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,197
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
But the FBI Director still serves at the "Pleasure Of The President". Trump had the power to fire him. There is no debate about that.
The question becomes why did Trump fire him and this is where the Obstruction of Justice issue arises.
And the last paragraph really has little to do with the issue at hand. I don't like Sessions any more then you do,but digging up some pretty penny ante stuff does not serve much of a purpose.
Question: If he fires the FBI director, but doesn't seek to impede any part of the investigation... is it still obstruction?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:31 PM   #1272
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,842
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
But the FBI Director still serves at the "Pleasure Of The President". Trump had the power to fire him. There is no debate about that.
The question becomes why did Trump fire him and this is where the Obstruction of Justice issue arises.
And the last paragraph really has little to do with the issue at hand. I don't like Sessions any more then you do,but digging up some pretty penny ante stuff does not serve much of a purpose.
I would argue that's not the same thing.

Not the same Sessions. The FBI Director was William Sessions not the present AG Jeff Sessions. No relation.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:35 PM   #1273
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,677
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I would argue that's not the same thing.

Not the same Sessions. The FBI Director was William Sessions not the present AG Jeff Sessions. No relation.
Ooops.How quickly we forget.
Point is that the President can fire the FBI director for a variety of reasons. He can fire him because he feels he and the FBI director are simply too far apart on policy.
But when you fire a director while the FBI is conducting an investigation of your White House Staff, then the question of obscturction of Justice comes into play.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; Yesterday at 05:38 PM.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:54 PM   #1274
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,842
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Ooops.How quickly we forget.
In all fairness to you. That was 22 years ago.
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Point is that the President can fire the FBI director for a variety of reasons. He can fire him because he feels he and the FBI director are simply too far apart on policy.
But when you fire a director while the FBI is conducting an investigation of your White House Staff, then the question of obscturction of Justice comes into play.
No argument The point I was trying to make was that the director is not supposed to be a political position.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:22 PM   #1275
Civet
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 624
To anyone who's been following this more closely than myself: Has Bannon actually been implicated in any of these possibly suspect links to Russia? Money, undisclosed meetings - that sort of thing.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:05 PM   #1276
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,933
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Ooops.How quickly we forget.
Point is that the President can fire the FBI director for a variety of reasons. He can fire him because he feels he and the FBI director are simply too far apart on policy.
But when you fire a director while the FBI is conducting an investigation of your White House Staff, then the question of obscturction of Justice comes into play.
Especially when you are on tape blabbing to the Russians that the firing will take pressure off that same investigation.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.