Trump whistleblower brewing scandal - Page 3

acbytesla · 22nd September 2019, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

I thought that the whistleblower law was clear and that the administration was obviously in violation. (NOTE: I don't know that being in violation comes with any explicit penalties. I don't know that ignoring it would be a criminal act.)

An excerpt:

The situation is perhaps murkier than I first thought. It is possible that the law as written will not allow this communication to be seen by Congressional committees. We will see how this turns out. (I'd reckon that any case which makes it to the Supreme Court is likely to be found in Trump's favor, but I'm guessing this based on the political makeup of the court and not on merits, about which I know nothing.)

There IS no Executive Privilege when it involves corruption.

dudalb · 22nd September 2019, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Once a democracy resorts to armed coups it usually turns out to be worse than the problem.

At times, yes. But if the country is no longer a deomcracy, what choice do you have.
At times freedom must must be defended by force or arms or you lost it.
As you might have guessed from my signature, I am not a big fan of pacifism .
Armed resitence is a last resort, but there are times when you have no choice but the last resort.

dudalb · 22nd September 2019, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Fortunately, we can usually avoid problems by simply interpreting the Constitution rationally rather than pedantically.

But people have different opinions as to what interpertation is "Rational".

Brainster · 22nd September 2019, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

At times, yes. But if the country is no longer a deomcracy, what choice do you have.
At times freedom must must be defended by force or arms or you lost it.
As you might have guessed from my signature, I am not a big fan of pacifism .
Armed resitence is a last resort, but there are times when you have no choice but the last resort.

So you're signing up with Travis' Wolverines?

phiwum · 22nd September 2019, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

There IS no Executive Privilege when it involves corruption.

The question is whether the law requires the DNI to turn over the whistleblower report. According to WaPo, it's complicated.

Your one line response ignores all complication and seems to presume that any allegations of corruption nullifies all concepts of executive privilege. That seems naive. Until evidence is made available, whether corruption occurred or not is unclear. You seem to be begging the question.

acbytesla · 22nd September 2019, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

The question is whether the law requires the DNI to turn over the whistleblower report. According to WaPo, it's complicated.

Your one line response ignores all complication and seems to presume that any allegations of corruption nullifies all concepts of executive privilege. That seems naive. Until evidence is made available, whether corruption occurred or not is unclear. You seem to be begging the question.

There may some legitimate reason that the DNI doesn't forward the whistleblower complaint to Congress although I doubt it. But Executive Privilege isn't one of them. If Trump asked a foreign government to investigate a Presidential candidate it involves potential corruption and executive privilege may not be invoked.

Now, it's not surprising that Trump and his cabal think they can get away with this. They've done it before. But they are breaking new ground and going against past legal interpretations. By the way Schiff said exactly the same thing about privilege.

JoeMorgue · 22nd September 2019, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

There IS no Executive Privilege when it involves corruption.

There absolutely is until someone says otherwise.

Again Trump can do whatever he wants until someone stops him.

acbytesla · 22nd September 2019, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

There absolutely is until someone says otherwise.

Again Trump can do whatever he wants until someone stops him.

The problem is the entire Republican party including appointed judges either have their noses up Trump's ass or they are too cowardly.

The Great Zaganza · 23rd September 2019, 12:39 AM

At this point, the content of the Whistle-blower Complaint is secondary: it is almost impossible for it to be worse than the cover-up.

the acting DNI has to be fired, Barr needs to get hauled before Congress to explain what business he had reviewing the process at all, and get censured.

And if Trump gave anyone any directions to suppress the transfer of the Complaint, this needs to be in the Top Five of his Articles of Impeachment.

Safe-Keeper · 23rd September 2019, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

So to summarize:
1) he didn't do it
2) if he did do it, there's nothing wrong with
3) even if it were clearly wrong, it doesn't matter because he can't be investigated for doing it
4) suck it, libtards

Is that about right?

2b. if there is anything wrong with it, it doesn't matter because other people do bad things, too.
3b. if anyone does investigate, it's a witch hunt.

Lurch · 23rd September 2019, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

I'm not opposed to Trump facing punishment if he clearly violated laws. Most of his corruption of the system isn't clear breaking of a criminal code, as far as I can tell. Taking emoluments, for instance, isn't a crime and I don't think that his behavior would make charging him with accepting bribes an easy sell.

Obstruction of justice could perhaps stick, but I'm not sure that it is such a clearcut case that it is worthwhile to further divide the country pursuing that charge.

But, yes, if Trump committed clear crimes, so clear that any reasonable person would see that it's a violation of the criminal code, then I think he should pay the price.

Don't overlook the fact that 1,000 prosecutors across the US signed a letter stating that were Trump not the sitting POTUS they would prosecute him based on the strength of the Mueller report. I place rather more weight on their opinion than I do the 'internet lawyering' going on round these here parts.

So yeah, in my view Trump needs to be criminally prosecuted as soon as his arse leaves the WH.

WilliamSeger · 23rd September 2019, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

At this point, the content of the Whistle-blower Complaint is secondary: it is almost impossible for it to be worse than the cover-up.

the acting DNI has to be fired, Barr needs to get hauled before Congress to explain what business he had reviewing the process at all, and get censured.

And if Trump gave anyone any directions to suppress the transfer of the Complaint, this needs to be in the Top Five of his Articles of Impeachment.

If you hurry, you can buy shares on predictit.org for "Trump impeached in first term" for $0.38. You don't have to hold them until the end of his term; you can sell anytime, and I'd say this ~~bet~~ investment has a lot of upside -- it's gone up $0.05 since I bought last week.

Correction: I was wrong; I paid $0.30 last week, so it's gone up 26% since Friday.

Meadmaker · 23rd September 2019, 04:21 AM

I don't know how to tell y'all this, but this is another nothingburger.

Maybe something will turn up later.

The Great Zaganza · 23rd September 2019, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't know how to tell y'all this, but this is another nothingburger.

Maybe something will turn up later.

If you think so, you haven't been paying attention.

Adam Schiff would be 100% justified to have the Acting DNI arrested for defying a Congressional Subpoena. He could have a judge issue an order and have the Washningtion PD drag him in handcuffs in front of his Committee.

The law is 100% clear on this - you don't get to ignore a subpoena.

You still think this is a nothingburger?

applecorped · 23rd September 2019, 04:57 AM

Not only is this nothing Burger it's an Impossible nothing Burger. No meat.

Meadmaker · 23rd September 2019, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

If you think so, you haven't been paying attention.

Adam Schiff would be 100% justified to have the Acting DNI arrested for defying a Congressional Subpoena. He could have a judge issue an order and have the Washningtion PD drag him in handcuffs in front of his Committee.

The law is 100% clear on this - you don't get to ignore a subpoena.

You still think this is a nothingburger?

Do you think if Adam Schiff could get away with that, he wouldn't do it? What are you asking me to believe? That it's only Rep. Schiff's generous nature that prevents him from doing that?

A bunch of lawyers will argue the fine points of the law and eventually a court will rule on what has to be told to whom, and then...….no one will care unless there's some really big actual scandal revealed at that time.

Unless and until that happens.....nothingburger.

Belz... · 23rd September 2019, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I've stacked up on popcorn already. "The Resistance" should check if they have enough handkerchiefs for all those liberal tears they will be crying.

Sorry, what are you babbling about?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

It's the thing that would end Trump's Presidency in any sane world.

Yeah but with a Great Old One in the Oval Office, sanity's gone out the window.

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Let's see, Trump is threatening Ukraine because previously Biden threatened Ukraine. I've got an idea! Why don't they both just withdraw from the 2020 election? They're too old anyhow!

Would that not mean that Sanders and Warren also have to step out?

Belz... · 23rd September 2019, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

At times, yes. But if the country is no longer a deomcracy, what choice do you have.
At times freedom must must be defended by force or arms or you lost it.
As you might have guessed from my signature, I am not a big fan of pacifism .
Armed resitence is a last resort, but there are times when you have no choice but the last resort.

The US is STILL split in twain after all this time. But despite the deep divide over slavery/reconstruction/civil rights that's existed since before the revolution, the US has managed to largely stay standing. That's quite an achievement of its founders, all things considered.

I wonder, had that initial divide not existing (say, slavery having not been an issue to begin with), how things might've turned out.

The Great Zaganza · 23rd September 2019, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Do you think if Adam Schiff could get away with that, he wouldn't do it? What are you asking me to believe? That it's only Rep. Schiff's generous nature that prevents him from doing that?

yes, exactly that - Schiff thinks that someone in the Administration will cave. But I have no doubt that unless Maguire does show up soon and explains exactly why he is breaking the law, Schiff will at the very least will hold him in contempt for $5,000/day.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

A bunch of lawyers will argue the fine points of the law and eventually a court will rule on what has to be told to whom, and then...….no one will care unless there's some really big actual scandal revealed at that time.

Unless and until that happens.....nothingburger.

Wrong.
The law is clear on a Subpoena - there is no give and take here.
Lawyers can argue about the Whistleblower Memo (because Whistleblower protection is for ****), but Subpoenas are Rocket Science.

BobTheCoward · 23rd September 2019, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

yes, exactly that - Schiff thinks that someone in the Administration will cave. But I have no doubt that unless Maguire does show up soon and explains exactly why he is breaking the law, Schiff will at the very least will hold him in contempt for $5,000/day.

Wrong.
The law is clear on a Subpoena - there is no give and take here.
Lawyers can argue about the Whistleblower Memo (because Whistleblower protection is for ****), but Subpoenas are Rocket Science.

An unconstitutional subpoena is not legitimate. They will challenge it arguing it violates article 2. Rights now, the narrative is not going to be cover up but Constitutional dispute.

WilliamSeger · 23rd September 2019, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

An unconstitutional subpoena is not legitimate. They will challenge it arguing it violates article 2. Rights now, the narrative is not going to be cover up but Constitutional dispute.

It's perfectly legitimate unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, and even in that unlikely event, the sleazy use of foreign policy and the cover-up are both legitimate reasons for impeachment: abuse of power.

BobTheCoward · 23rd September 2019, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

It's perfectly legitimate unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, and even in that unlikely event, the sleazy use of foreign policy and the cover-up are both legitimate reasons for impeachment: abuse of power.

The federal court is going to grant an injunction incredibly fast.

thaiboxerken · 23rd September 2019, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

yes, exactly that - Schiff thinks that someone in the Administration will cave. But I have no doubt that unless Maguire does show up soon and explains exactly why he is breaking the law, Schiff will at the very least will hold him in contempt for $5,000/day.

Wrong.
The law is clear on a Subpoena - there is no give and take here.
Lawyers can argue about the Whistleblower Memo (because Whistleblower protection is for ****), but Subpoenas are Rocket Science.

As much as I hate to do it, Meadmaker's point is correct. The simple fact is that the Democrats are too wimpy to actually use their lawful powers to enforce the laws. They keep saying "we should impeach" and "we should hold you in contempt" and the like, but they never do.

WilliamSeger · 23rd September 2019, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The federal court is going to grant an injunction incredibly fast.

Yeah, well, that may be important in "the narrative" on Trump State TV and Trump Kool-Aid parties, but elsewhere, all it does it does is imply that the whistleblower complaint is even worse than we already know.

BobTheCoward · 23rd September 2019, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Yeah, well, that may be important in "the narrative" on Trump State TV and Trump Kool-Aid parties, but elsewhere, all it does it does is imply that the whistleblower complaint is even worse than we already know.

Im betting that they can keep "both sides" narratives winning far longer than you think.

Meadmaker · 23rd September 2019, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

yes, exactly that - Schiff thinks that someone in the Administration will cave. But I have no doubt that unless Maguire does show up soon and explains exactly why he is breaking the law, Schiff will at the very least will hold him in contempt for $5,000/day.

Wrong.
The law is clear on a Subpoena - there is no give and take here.
Lawyers can argue about the Whistleblower Memo (because Whistleblower protection is for ****), but Subpoenas are Rocket Science.

Well in that case the court situation should resolve itself very quickly, and we can get to the substance....assuming there is any substance.

Meadmaker · 23rd September 2019, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

It's perfectly legitimate unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, and even in that unlikely event, the sleazy use of foreign policy and the cover-up are both legitimate reasons for impeachment: abuse of power.

. I googled "high crimes, midemeanors, and sleaziness" and didn't get any hits. Maybe I spelled it wrong.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for investigations and such. Maybe when it comes out, there will be something there. I hope so. Right now, though, there's a nothingburger.

WilliamSeger · 23rd September 2019, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

As much as I hate to do it, Meadmaker's point is correct. The simple fact is that the Democrats are too wimpy to actually use their lawful powers to enforce the laws. They keep saying "we should impeach" and "we should hold you in contempt" and the like, but they never do.

Democrats are afraid that going after this lying sack of pig turds will only make him stronger. What they're really afraid of is the ignorance and stupidity of the current electorate. That's a rational fear.

BobTheCoward · 23rd September 2019, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Democrats are afraid that going after this lying sack of pig turds will only make him stronger. What they're really afraid of is the ignorance and stupidity of the current electorate. That's a rational fear.

Then why run as a representative of a group you have such disdain for?

Belz... · 23rd September 2019, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Democrats are afraid that going after this lying sack of pig turds will only make him stronger. What they're really afraid of is the ignorance and stupidity of the current electorate. That's a rational fear.

Indeed. They're not acting because they know it may lead to worse consequences, and the very fact that they are probably right is scary in and of itself.

WilliamSeger · 23rd September 2019, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Then why run as a representative of a group you have such disdain for?

Well, given that Trump's approval rating is now 40% in North Carolina and 39% in Texas, a reasonable alternative approach to dealing with the rattlesnake in the closet is to wait him out and have confidence that a sufficient number of voters aren't stupid enough to make the same mistake twice, rather than try to grab him by the tail now. Sympathy for the poor rattlesnake, we could do without.

varwoche · 23rd September 2019, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

... Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for investigations and such. Maybe when it comes out, there will be something there. I hope so. Right now, though, there's a nothingburger.

To the extent you're right, we should all marvel at the fragility of US democracy. That's on top of baseline marveling over the past 3 years.

BobTheCoward · 23rd September 2019, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Well, given that Trump's approval rating is now 40% in North Carolina and 39% in Texas, a reasonable alternative approach to dealing with the rattlesnake in the closet is to wait him out and have confidence that a sufficient number of voters aren't stupid enough to make the same mistake twice, rather than try to grab him by the tail now. Sympathy for the poor rattlesnake, we could do without.

If they do not support you they are stupid, if they support you they are not stupid?

Random · 23rd September 2019, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Well, given that Trump's approval rating is now 40% in North Carolina and 39% in Texas, a reasonable alternative approach to dealing with the rattlesnake in the closet is to wait him out and have confidence that a sufficient number of voters aren't stupid enough to make the same mistake twice, rather than try to grab him by the tail now. Sympathy for the poor rattlesnake, we could do without.

There are three problems with the whole "Let's just wait for him to lose the election" strategy. One, that is what we did last time, it didn't work. Two, while he is in office, he is still doing illegal things. Three, this particular illegal thing was designed to help him win re-election.

ETA: He's not a rattlesnake in a closet, he is a rattlesnake in a daycare center, actively trying to bite children.

The Great Zaganza · 23rd September 2019, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

If they do not support you they are stupid, if they support you they are not stupid?

Falling for the same obvious conman more than once is a kind of stupid.

Belz... · 23rd September 2019, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

To the extent you're right, we should all marvel at the fragility of US democracy. That's on top of baseline marveling over the past 3 years.

As I said earlier today you could also marvel at its stability, given the deep divide that's existed since the beginning.

JoeMorgue · 23rd September 2019, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Random

There are three problems with the whole "Let's just wait for him to lose the election" strategy. One, that is what we did last time, it didn't work. Two, while he is in office, he is still doing illegal things. Three, this particular illegal thing was designed to help him win re-election.

"We can't wait" doesn't change the reality that nobody who wants to do anything about Trump is in a position to do anything about Trump.

To torture the metaphor a bit we're suggesting going to get a pair of snakebit resistant gloves before grabbing the snake.

You're pointing out, and I need to stress I don't think you are wrong per se, that the snake might bite more children while we go get the gloves. I'm pointing out that if we grab the snake before we are ready we risk getting bit ourselves, dying, and there's no one to get the snake before it bites all the children.

dasmiller · 23rd September 2019, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Random

There are three problems with the whole "Let's just wait for him to lose the election" strategy. One, that is what we did last time, it didn't work. Two, while he is in office, he is still doing illegal things. Three, this particular illegal thing was designed to help him win re-election.

ETA: He's not a rattlesnake in a closet, he is a rattlesnake in a daycare center, actively trying to bite children.

I'd add a 4th thing: By not pursuing impeachment, the House is giving a tacit approval of Trump's behavior. Imagine trying to impeach some future president, given that Trump's behavior (lying, obstruction of justice, abetting foreign dictators, etc) is not considered worthy of impeachment or even some censure vote.

WilliamSeger · 23rd September 2019, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Random

There are three problems with the whole "Let's just wait for him to lose the election" strategy. One, that is what we did last time, it didn't work. Two, while he is in office, he is still doing illegal things. Three, this particular illegal thing was designed to help him win re-election.

ETA: He's not a rattlesnake in a closet, he is a rattlesnake in a daycare center, actively trying to bite children.

True, which is why I don't agree with the strategy, but I understand it.

JoeMorgue · 23rd September 2019, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

I'd add a 4th thing: By not pursuing impeachment, the House is giving a tacit approval of Trump's behavior. Imagine trying to impeach some future president, given that Trump's behavior (lying, obstruction of justice, abetting foreign dictators, etc) is not considered worthy of impeachment or even some censure vote.

If impeaching Trump hands him a second term there's a solid chance we won't be a in functioning democracy by the the time Marvel Phase 4 is completed and it won't matter. That reality is more important then the narrative.

A second term means at least, bare minimum, one more conservative Trump yes man on the Supreme Court. That happens and it's over. There will be no possible recourse within the system.

22nd September 2019, 04:34 PM	#81
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,566	Originally Posted by phiwum I thought that the whistleblower law was clear and that the administration was obviously in violation. (NOTE: I don't know that being in violation comes with any explicit penalties. I don't know that ignoring it would be a criminal act.) An excerpt: The situation is perhaps murkier than I first thought. It is possible that the law as written will not allow this communication to be seen by Congressional committees. We will see how this turns out. (I'd reckon that any case which makes it to the Supreme Court is likely to be found in Trump's favor, but I'm guessing this based on the political makeup of the court and not on merits, about which I know nothing.) There IS no Executive Privilege when it involves corruption.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

22nd September 2019, 04:54 PM	#82
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,447	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Once a democracy resorts to armed coups it usually turns out to be worse than the problem. At times, yes. But if the country is no longer a deomcracy, what choice do you have. At times freedom must must be defended by force or arms or you lost it. As you might have guessed from my signature, I am not a big fan of pacifism . Armed resitence is a last resort, but there are times when you have no choice but the last resort.
	__________________ 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.

22nd September 2019, 04:56 PM	#83
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,447	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Fortunately, we can usually avoid problems by simply interpreting the Constitution rationally rather than pedantically. But people have different opinions as to what interpertation is "Rational".
	__________________ 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.

22nd September 2019, 05:01 PM	#84
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,358	Originally Posted by dudalb At times, yes. But if the country is no longer a deomcracy, what choice do you have. At times freedom must must be defended by force or arms or you lost it. As you might have guessed from my signature, I am not a big fan of pacifism . Armed resitence is a last resort, but there are times when you have no choice but the last resort. So you're signing up with Travis' Wolverines?
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

22nd September 2019, 06:53 PM	#86
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,566	Originally Posted by phiwum The question is whether the law requires the DNI to turn over the whistleblower report. According to WaPo, it's complicated. Your one line response ignores all complication and seems to presume that any allegations of corruption nullifies all concepts of executive privilege. That seems naive. Until evidence is made available, whether corruption occurred or not is unclear. You seem to be begging the question. There may some legitimate reason that the DNI doesn't forward the whistleblower complaint to Congress although I doubt it. But Executive Privilege isn't one of them. If Trump asked a foreign government to investigate a Presidential candidate it involves potential corruption and executive privilege may not be invoked. Now, it's not surprising that Trump and his cabal think they can get away with this. They've done it before. But they are breaking new ground and going against past legal interpretations. By the way Schiff said exactly the same thing about privilege.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

22nd September 2019, 06:19 PM	#85
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,732	Originally Posted by acbytesla There IS no Executive Privilege when it involves corruption. The question is whether the law requires the DNI to turn over the whistleblower report. According to WaPo, it's complicated. Your one line response ignores all complication and seems to presume that any allegations of corruption nullifies all concepts of executive privilege. That seems naive. Until evidence is made available, whether corruption occurred or not is unclear. You seem to be begging the question.

22nd September 2019, 06:54 PM	#87
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,391	Originally Posted by acbytesla There IS no Executive Privilege when it involves corruption. There absolutely is until someone says otherwise. Again Trump can do whatever he wants until someone stops him.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

22nd September 2019, 07:24 PM	#88
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,566	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue There absolutely is until someone says otherwise. Again Trump can do whatever he wants until someone stops him. The problem is the entire Republican party including appointed judges either have their noses up Trump's ass or they are too cowardly.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

23rd September 2019, 12:39 AM	#89
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,853	At this point, the content of the Whistle-blower Complaint is secondary: it is almost impossible for it to be worse than the cover-up. the acting DNI has to be fired, Barr needs to get hauled before Congress to explain what business he had reviewing the process at all, and get censured. And if Trump gave anyone any directions to suppress the transfer of the Complaint, this needs to be in the Top Five of his Articles of Impeachment.

23rd September 2019, 03:42 AM	#90
Safe-Keeper Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Norway Posts: 10,396	Originally Posted by pgwenthold So to summarize: 1) he didn't do it 2) if he did do it, there's nothing wrong with 3) even if it were clearly wrong, it doesn't matter because he can't be investigated for doing it 4) suck it, libtards Is that about right? 2b. if there is anything wrong with it, it doesn't matter because other people do bad things, too. 3b. if anyone does investigate, it's a witch hunt.
	__________________ "He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs "If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig

23rd September 2019, 03:54 AM	#91
Lurch Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Ottawa Posts: 1,666	Originally Posted by phiwum I'm not opposed to Trump facing punishment if he clearly violated laws. Most of his corruption of the system isn't clear breaking of a criminal code, as far as I can tell. Taking emoluments, for instance, isn't a crime and I don't think that his behavior would make charging him with accepting bribes an easy sell. Obstruction of justice could perhaps stick, but I'm not sure that it is such a clearcut case that it is worthwhile to further divide the country pursuing that charge. But, yes, if Trump committed clear crimes, so clear that any reasonable person would see that it's a violation of the criminal code, then I think he should pay the price. Don't overlook the fact that 1,000 prosecutors across the US signed a letter stating that were Trump not the sitting POTUS they would prosecute him based on the strength of the Mueller report. I place rather more weight on their opinion than I do the 'internet lawyering' going on round these here parts. So yeah, in my view Trump needs to be criminally prosecuted as soon as his arse leaves the WH.

23rd September 2019, 04:18 AM	#92
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza At this point, the content of the Whistle-blower Complaint is secondary: it is almost impossible for it to be worse than the cover-up. the acting DNI has to be fired, Barr needs to get hauled before Congress to explain what business he had reviewing the process at all, and get censured. And if Trump gave anyone any directions to suppress the transfer of the Complaint, this needs to be in the Top Five of his Articles of Impeachment. If you hurry, you can buy shares on predictit.org for "Trump impeached in first term" for $0.38. You don't have to hold them until the end of his term; you can sell anytime, and I'd say this ~~bet~~ investment has a lot of upside -- it's gone up $0.05 since I bought last week. Correction: I was wrong; I paid $0.30 last week, so it's gone up 26% since Friday.
	Last edited by WilliamSeger; 23rd September 2019 at 04:39 AM.

23rd September 2019, 04:21 AM	#93
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,469	I don't know how to tell y'all this, but this is another nothingburger. Maybe something will turn up later.

23rd September 2019, 04:44 AM	#94
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,853	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I don't know how to tell y'all this, but this is another nothingburger. Maybe something will turn up later. If you think so, you haven't been paying attention. Adam Schiff would be 100% justified to have the Acting DNI arrested for defying a Congressional Subpoena. He could have a judge issue an order and have the Washningtion PD drag him in handcuffs in front of his Committee. The law is 100% clear on this - you don't get to ignore a subpoena. You still think this is a nothingburger?
	Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 23rd September 2019 at 04:45 AM.

23rd September 2019, 04:57 AM	#95
applecorped Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 20,145	Not only is this nothing Burger it's an Impossible nothing Burger. No meat.
applecorped Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 20,145

23rd September 2019, 05:02 AM	#96
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,469	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza If you think so, you haven't been paying attention. Adam Schiff would be 100% justified to have the Acting DNI arrested for defying a Congressional Subpoena. He could have a judge issue an order and have the Washningtion PD drag him in handcuffs in front of his Committee. The law is 100% clear on this - you don't get to ignore a subpoena. You still think this is a nothingburger? Do you think if Adam Schiff could get away with that, he wouldn't do it? What are you asking me to believe? That it's only Rep. Schiff's generous nature that prevents him from doing that? A bunch of lawyers will argue the fine points of the law and eventually a court will rule on what has to be told to whom, and then...….no one will care unless there's some really big actual scandal revealed at that time. Unless and until that happens.....nothingburger.

23rd September 2019, 05:06 AM	#97
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,962	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress I've stacked up on popcorn already. "The Resistance" should check if they have enough handkerchiefs for all those liberal tears they will be crying. Sorry, what are you babbling about? Originally Posted by JoeMorgue It's the thing that would end Trump's Presidency in any sane world. Yeah but with a Great Old One in the Oval Office, sanity's gone out the window. Originally Posted by Trebuchet Let's see, Trump is threatening Ukraine because previously Biden threatened Ukraine. I've got an idea! Why don't they both just withdraw from the 2020 election? They're too old anyhow! Would that not mean that Sanders and Warren also have to step out?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

23rd September 2019, 05:16 AM	#98
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,962	Originally Posted by dudalb At times, yes. But if the country is no longer a deomcracy, what choice do you have. At times freedom must must be defended by force or arms or you lost it. As you might have guessed from my signature, I am not a big fan of pacifism . Armed resitence is a last resort, but there are times when you have no choice but the last resort. The US is STILL split in twain after all this time. But despite the deep divide over slavery/reconstruction/civil rights that's existed since before the revolution, the US has managed to largely stay standing. That's quite an achievement of its founders, all things considered. I wonder, had that initial divide not existing (say, slavery having not been an issue to begin with), how things might've turned out.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

23rd September 2019, 05:16 AM	#99
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,853	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Do you think if Adam Schiff could get away with that, he wouldn't do it? What are you asking me to believe? That it's only Rep. Schiff's generous nature that prevents him from doing that? yes, exactly that - Schiff thinks that someone in the Administration will cave. But I have no doubt that unless Maguire does show up soon and explains exactly why he is breaking the law, Schiff will at the very least will hold him in contempt for $5,000/day. Originally Posted by Meadmaker A bunch of lawyers will argue the fine points of the law and eventually a court will rule on what has to be told to whom, and then...….no one will care unless there's some really big actual scandal revealed at that time. Unless and until that happens.....nothingburger. Wrong. The law is clear on a Subpoena - there is no give and take here. Lawyers can argue about the Whistleblower Memo (because Whistleblower protection is for ****), but Subpoenas are Rocket Science.

23rd September 2019, 05:36 AM	#100
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,417	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza yes, exactly that - Schiff thinks that someone in the Administration will cave. But I have no doubt that unless Maguire does show up soon and explains exactly why he is breaking the law, Schiff will at the very least will hold him in contempt for $5,000/day. Wrong. The law is clear on a Subpoena - there is no give and take here. Lawyers can argue about the Whistleblower Memo (because Whistleblower protection is for ****), but Subpoenas are Rocket Science. An unconstitutional subpoena is not legitimate. They will challenge it arguing it violates article 2. Rights now, the narrative is not going to be cover up but Constitutional dispute.

23rd September 2019, 05:59 AM	#101
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward An unconstitutional subpoena is not legitimate. They will challenge it arguing it violates article 2. Rights now, the narrative is not going to be cover up but Constitutional dispute. It's perfectly legitimate unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, and even in that unlikely event, the sleazy use of foreign policy and the cover-up are both legitimate reasons for impeachment: abuse of power.

23rd September 2019, 06:09 AM	#102
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,417	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger It's perfectly legitimate unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, and even in that unlikely event, the sleazy use of foreign policy and the cover-up are both legitimate reasons for impeachment: abuse of power. The federal court is going to grant an injunction incredibly fast.

23rd September 2019, 06:14 AM	#103
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,717	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza yes, exactly that - Schiff thinks that someone in the Administration will cave. But I have no doubt that unless Maguire does show up soon and explains exactly why he is breaking the law, Schiff will at the very least will hold him in contempt for $5,000/day. Wrong. The law is clear on a Subpoena - there is no give and take here. Lawyers can argue about the Whistleblower Memo (because Whistleblower protection is for ****), but Subpoenas are Rocket Science. As much as I hate to do it, Meadmaker's point is correct. The simple fact is that the Democrats are too wimpy to actually use their lawful powers to enforce the laws. They keep saying "we should impeach" and "we should hold you in contempt" and the like, but they never do.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

23rd September 2019, 06:45 AM	#104
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward The federal court is going to grant an injunction incredibly fast. Yeah, well, that may be important in "the narrative" on Trump State TV and Trump Kool-Aid parties, but elsewhere, all it does it does is imply that the whistleblower complaint is even worse than we already know.

23rd September 2019, 06:48 AM	#105
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,417	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Yeah, well, that may be important in "the narrative" on Trump State TV and Trump Kool-Aid parties, but elsewhere, all it does it does is imply that the whistleblower complaint is even worse than we already know. Im betting that they can keep "both sides" narratives winning far longer than you think.

23rd September 2019, 06:56 AM	#106
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,469	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza yes, exactly that - Schiff thinks that someone in the Administration will cave. But I have no doubt that unless Maguire does show up soon and explains exactly why he is breaking the law, Schiff will at the very least will hold him in contempt for $5,000/day. Wrong. The law is clear on a Subpoena - there is no give and take here. Lawyers can argue about the Whistleblower Memo (because Whistleblower protection is for ****), but Subpoenas are Rocket Science. Well in that case the court situation should resolve itself very quickly, and we can get to the substance....assuming there is any substance.

23rd September 2019, 07:02 AM	#107
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,469	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger It's perfectly legitimate unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, and even in that unlikely event, the sleazy use of foreign policy and the cover-up are both legitimate reasons for impeachment: abuse of power. . I googled "high crimes, midemeanors, and sleaziness" and didn't get any hits. Maybe I spelled it wrong. Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for investigations and such. Maybe when it comes out, there will be something there. I hope so. Right now, though, there's a nothingburger.

23rd September 2019, 07:03 AM	#108
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken As much as I hate to do it, Meadmaker's point is correct. The simple fact is that the Democrats are too wimpy to actually use their lawful powers to enforce the laws. They keep saying "we should impeach" and "we should hold you in contempt" and the like, but they never do. Democrats are afraid that going after this lying sack of pig turds will only make him stronger. What they're really afraid of is the ignorance and stupidity of the current electorate. That's a rational fear.

23rd September 2019, 07:18 AM	#109
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,417	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Democrats are afraid that going after this lying sack of pig turds will only make him stronger. What they're really afraid of is the ignorance and stupidity of the current electorate. That's a rational fear. Then why run as a representative of a group you have such disdain for?

23rd September 2019, 07:21 AM	#110
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,962	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Democrats are afraid that going after this lying sack of pig turds will only make him stronger. What they're really afraid of is the ignorance and stupidity of the current electorate. That's a rational fear. Indeed. They're not acting because they know it may lead to worse consequences, and the very fact that they are probably right is scary in and of itself.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

23rd September 2019, 08:00 AM	#111
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Then why run as a representative of a group you have such disdain for? Well, given that Trump's approval rating is now 40% in North Carolina and 39% in Texas, a reasonable alternative approach to dealing with the rattlesnake in the closet is to wait him out and have confidence that a sufficient number of voters aren't stupid enough to make the same mistake twice, rather than try to grab him by the tail now. Sympathy for the poor rattlesnake, we could do without.
	Last edited by WilliamSeger; 23rd September 2019 at 08:02 AM.

23rd September 2019, 08:05 AM	#112
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,465	Originally Posted by Meadmaker ... Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for investigations and such. Maybe when it comes out, there will be something there. I hope so. Right now, though, there's a nothingburger. To the extent you're right, we should all marvel at the fragility of US democracy. That's on top of baseline marveling over the past 3 years.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. Last edited by varwoche; 23rd September 2019 at 08:07 AM.

23rd September 2019, 08:15 AM	#113
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,417	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Well, given that Trump's approval rating is now 40% in North Carolina and 39% in Texas, a reasonable alternative approach to dealing with the rattlesnake in the closet is to wait him out and have confidence that a sufficient number of voters aren't stupid enough to make the same mistake twice, rather than try to grab him by the tail now. Sympathy for the poor rattlesnake, we could do without. If they do not support you they are stupid, if they support you they are not stupid?

23rd September 2019, 08:21 AM	#114
Random Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,228	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Well, given that Trump's approval rating is now 40% in North Carolina and 39% in Texas, a reasonable alternative approach to dealing with the rattlesnake in the closet is to wait him out and have confidence that a sufficient number of voters aren't stupid enough to make the same mistake twice, rather than try to grab him by the tail now. Sympathy for the poor rattlesnake, we could do without. There are three problems with the whole "Let's just wait for him to lose the election" strategy. One, that is what we did last time, it didn't work. Two, while he is in office, he is still doing illegal things. Three, this particular illegal thing was designed to help him win re-election. ETA: He's not a rattlesnake in a closet, he is a rattlesnake in a daycare center, actively trying to bite children.
Random Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,228	__________________ "...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?" Last edited by Random; 23rd September 2019 at 08:23 AM.

23rd September 2019, 08:22 AM	#115
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,853	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward If they do not support you they are stupid, if they support you they are not stupid? Falling for the same obvious conman more than once is a kind of stupid.