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 , Mueller investigation , Robert Mueller , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections , William Barr

Reply
Old 24th April 2019, 02:44 PM   #161
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,210
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Okay, the section is too big for me to quote. It starts on page 368, or Volume II page 156, with the heading Overarching Factual Issues, which summarizes the behavior described in the previous 156-ish pages. Then, on page 371 or VII p159, the report begins a lengthy legal justification for (1) how Congress can use it's impeachment powers to deal with Presidential obstruction of justice and (2) how the statute of limitations applies to Presidents once they are no longer in office. It's under the heading LEGAL DEFENSES To THE APPLICATION OF OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE STATUTES To THE PRESIDENT. The section concludes with, page 392 or VII p180,

tl;dr: Congress can investigate and prosecute obstruction charges against the President without the problems caused if the DOJ did it.
It's very considerate of Mueller to give Congress a refresher on their constitutionally delegated powers and responsibilities considering the type of politicians the electorate has sent to DC lately, but that does not support what was claimed earlier. Which was the reason Mueller did not find a crime was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting presidents.
Bogative 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 24th April 2019, 02:56 PM   #162
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,962
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
It's very considerate of Mueller to give Congress a refresher on their constitutionally delegated powers and responsibilities considering the type of politicians the electorate has sent to DC lately, but that does not support what was claimed earlier. Which was the reason Mueller did not find a crime was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting presidents.
I think you meant the reason Mueller didn't charge Trump was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting presidents. Because obstruction of justice is a crime, and Mueller explicitly said he couldn't exonerate Trump of that.
wareyin 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 24th April 2019, 02:58 PM   #163
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,238
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
I agree that all of these are true. However, this does not prove Mueller would have indicted the president only but for he was not allowed to by DOJ policy. As the prestige said earlier, Mueller's report only says that they are not going to bring charges, not why they are not going to bring charges as claimed earlier.
It would be odd if the reason that Mueller did not bring charges was because there were no crimes committed given that Mueller identified 4 or 5 incidents in which he shows all three elements necessary for the crime of obstruction are present, even if he never comes out and says, "The President committed crimes." Isn't the duck quacking and walking at that point?
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 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 24th April 2019, 03:08 PM   #164
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,448
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
I agree that all of these are true. However, this does not prove Mueller would have indicted the president only but for he was not allowed to by DOJ policy. As the prestige said earlier, Mueller's report only says that they are not going to bring charges, not why they are not going to bring charges as claimed earlier.
Is this according to Barr?

Or according to the actual report?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
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 24th April 2019, 03:10 PM   #165
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,448
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
...the reason Mueller did not find a crime [bring criminal charges] was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting presidents....
ftfy

...because that was the job of Congress and impeachment.

I don't suppose you see the difference?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
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 24th April 2019, 03:13 PM   #166
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,490
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
As the prestige said earlier, Mueller's report only says that they are not going to bring charges, not why they are not going to bring charges as claimed earlier.
That is demonstrably not true, as I outlined in my response to theprestige's post.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 24th April 2019, 03:25 PM   #167
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,490
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
Which was the reason Mueller did not find a crime was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting presidents.
You havenít read the report or my citations, have you?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 24th April 2019, 05:32 PM   #168
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,050
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
...The point of the Nixon comparison is that the argument that Trump shouldn't be impeached because "it would divide the country" is spurious, at best...
I'm not sure I agree with that and I have read opinions of people who do not agree at all. The Republican-elected president previous to Nixon was Dwight Eisenhower. The Republican-elected president after Nixon was Ronald Reagan. I think it can be argued that Watergate -- and Nixon essentially being forced out of office -- left a bitterness and a resentment among Republicans that continues to this day. I think it can be argued that post-Nixon/Watergate the Republican Party became noticeably more callous and cynical. Some of the most partisan Republicans, like Gingrich, Cheney, Rumsfeld, all entered politics in that era.

Below is a quote from Geoffrey Kabaservice, an author and research director of the Republican Main Street Partnership.

Quote:
Nixon was, despite the popular conception of him today, a centrist Republicanóand because of Watergate, he may have been the last one. Nixonís sensibilities were populist-conservative, but operationally he acted as a moderate and even occasionally as a progressive, for example when he created the Environmental Protection Agency and proposed national health insurance that would have covered more people than Obamacare. In 1997, I interviewed Elliot Richardson, who as attorney general played a key role in bringing down Nixon but felt history had wrongly remembered the 37th president. ďMost people donít really get the fact that the Nixon administration was to the left of the Clinton administration,Ē Richardson told me. Politico link
newyorkguy 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 24th April 2019, 07:08 PM   #169
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,091
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's the theory. The reality is that it does.
How so? Do you think they will decide not to vote for Trump if the Dems do not impeach him?

The reality is that Trumpkins will support DJT no matter what. Independents are the ones who will decide the election, and the majority of them want DJT impeached.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken 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 24th April 2019, 07:28 PM   #170
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,978
As much as I despise The PDJT and what he's done, I don't really want to see him get impeached and then not ousted. Especially when all that time and effort could be put to other purposes.

I'd rather see him self-implode.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
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 24th April 2019, 07:37 PM   #171
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,050
Polling has found Trump's approval ratings have dipped but support for his impeachment are also falling. This is from a Morning Consult/Politico weekly tracking poll, "which surveyed 1,992 registered voters April 19-21 and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points."

Quote:
  • 39% of voters approve of President Donald Trump’s job performance; 57% disapprove.
  • 34% said Congress should begin impeachment proceedings, compared with 48% who said it shouldn’t.
  • Support for impeaching Trump has dropped 12 points among Democrats since January.
Link
I don't think it's going to happen.
newyorkguy 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 24th April 2019, 07:51 PM   #172
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
I agree that all of these are true. However, this does not prove Mueller would have indicted the president only but for he was not allowed to by DOJ policy. As the prestige said earlier, Mueller's report only says that they are not going to bring charges, not why they are not going to bring charges as claimed earlier.
If Mueller had explicitly stated that if not for his being President Trump would be indicted, that would go against the DOJ guidelines. It would be tantamount to indicting, for it would indicate a legal opinion. But no such opinion is permissible, the remedy being a political one via the impeachment process.

You and your fellow Thrumpists keep misreading, misinterpreting, or plain old selectively choosing your 'outs' that fly in the face of that which is most plainly there to read in the Mueller report.

Mueller lays out numerous obstructive acts which meet all criteria for a legal reckoning.

But because a sitting President cannot be indicted--and not even be accused in the legal sense--the remedy is the political process of impeachment, as stipulated in the Constitution.

All the Barr quotes and selective trawling of the Mueller report Thrumpists trumpet cannot alter that indisputable state of affairs.
Lurch 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 24th April 2019, 08:01 PM   #173
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,978
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
But because a sitting President cannot be indicted--and not even be accused in the legal sense--the remedy is the political process of impeachment, as stipulated in the Constitution.
I understand that it is not DOJ policy to indict a sitting President, but is it actually a law? Or just a precedent or tradition? As The PDJT has demonstrated, precedent and tradition don't mean a thing.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
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 24th April 2019, 08:15 PM   #174
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,490
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I understand that it is not DOJ policy to indict a sitting President, but is it actually a law? Or just a precedent or tradition? As The PDJT has demonstrated, precedent and tradition don't mean a thing.
From what Iíve read, itís a policy with some strong legal theory behind it. You canít charge someone and not give them an opportunity to clear their name, usually in criminal court. You canít tie up the President in criminal court because the President has to be available to perform his duties as President and, anyway, the Constitution gave the power to remove a President to Congress, not the Judiciary.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 24th April 2019, 08:23 PM   #175
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,549
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
From what Iíve read, itís a policy with some strong legal theory behind it. You canít charge someone and not give them an opportunity to clear their name, usually in criminal court. You canít tie up the President in criminal court because the President has to be available to perform his duties as President and, anyway, the Constitution gave the power to remove a President to Congress, not the Judiciary.
I'd say it's pretty weak legal theory. What it is, is the DOJ knowing who their boss is. This policy was written first by the Nixon DOJl. The argument is about practicality not any law. There IS NOTHING in the Constitution or any other legislated law that says a President can't be indicted.
__________________
ď A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. Ē
― 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 24th April 2019, 08:26 PM   #176
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,534
It's an untested legal theory.
And it is very shaky.

But if we ask the current SC, we will provide probably get an answer we don't like.

EDIT: stupid auto correct.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.

Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 24th April 2019 at 09:02 PM.
The Great Zaganza 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 24th April 2019, 08:27 PM   #177
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,091
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It's an untested legal theory.
And it is very shaky.

But if we ask the current SC, we will provide get an answer we don't like.
Yep. The current SCOTUS will likely side with Trump, as Republicans love the idea of an all-power executive.... as long at that executive is a Republican.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken 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 24th April 2019, 08:45 PM   #178
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,024
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
From what Iíve read, itís a policy with some strong legal theory behind it. You canít charge someone and not give them an opportunity to clear their name, usually in criminal court. You canít tie up the President in criminal court because the President has to be available to perform his duties as President and, anyway, the Constitution gave the power to remove a President to Congress, not the Judiciary.
The president can fire the attorneys for interfering with the functioning of government. If they charge him, and the president doesn't fire them, I don't think there is a question for a judge to answer. The president is fine with the trial in that case.

Revealed preferences
BobTheCoward 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 24th April 2019, 09:04 PM   #179
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,534
There is a simply question to ask those who think the Mueller Report means Trump is in the clear:

do you think that, based on Mueller's findings, Trump cannot reasonably be charge with Obstruction once out of office?
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza 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 25th April 2019, 02:22 AM   #180
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,621
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
The reality is that Trumpkins will support DJT no matter what. Independents are the ones who will decide the election, and the majority of them want DJT impeached.
Yeah, that's the point. How about the rest? Talking or taking action on impeachment might not change minds on the extremes, but what about the moderates?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 25th April 2019, 02:23 AM   #181
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,621
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'd say it's pretty weak legal theory.
I think it's actually pretty solid. I disagree with it, mind you. It gives the impression that the President is above the law.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 25th April 2019, 02:24 AM   #182
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,490
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'd say it's pretty weak legal theory. What it is, is the DOJ knowing who their boss is. This policy was written first by the Nixon DOJl. The argument is about practicality not any law. There IS NOTHING in the Constitution or any other legislated law that says a President can't be indicted.
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It's an untested legal theory.
And it is very shaky.

But if we ask the current SC, we will provide probably get an answer we don't like.

EDIT: stupid auto correct.
Well, IANAL. Mueller seems to buy into it, at least.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 25th April 2019, 02:31 AM   #183
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,534
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Well, IANAL. Mueller seems to buy into it, at least.
As a soldier and lifelong Republican, Mueller doesn't want to ruin the Presidency for a future Ike.
And he thinks Trump can be dealt with in other ways.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza 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 25th April 2019, 03:52 AM   #184
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,479
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
OK Obstruction, it wasn't that he couldn't charge a sitting President, it's that the President has Constitutional rights to fire anyone in the Department of Justice.

His rights to do that are laid out in the Constitution.

Why would Robert Mueller Charge him with Obstruction, when every court in the land would say that he is Constitutionally empowered to fire the FBI director? Mueller would look like an idiot.
First, there were a dozen instances that Mueller referred to, not just the firing of Comey.

Second, there is no clear law that says a president cannot obstruct justice by firing staff. That he has a legal right to do so in general does not mean that doing so in a particular case isn't obstruction.

In general, I have a legal of free speech, but I cannot tell someone what lies to tell in a grand jury.

To be sure, Barr seems to agree that firing Comey couldn't be obstruction, for the reasons you say, but this is not settled opinion at all.
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 25th April 2019, 04:10 AM   #185
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,621
Well of course it's settled opinion. It's the opinion he wants!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 25th April 2019, 04:19 AM   #186
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,050
This is from a Reuters news article published two months ago, although it covers material I'm certain we've already been over. Possibly previously quoting from this article.
Quote:
In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him. “The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government. Link
It is policy, however -- not a law that states the incumbent president cannot be indicted -- and some lawyers disagree with the policy.
Quote:
Some lawyers have argued that the nation’s founders could have included a provision in the Constitution shielding the president from prosecution, but did not do so, suggesting an indictment would be permissible. According to this view, immunity for the president violates the fundamental principle that nobody is above the law.

Ken Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s in the somewhat different role of independent counsel, in 1998 conducted his own analysis of the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted, indicating he did not consider the 1973 Justice Department memo binding on him. Starr did not indict Clinton in his investigation involving the president’s relationship with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky, but lawyers in his office concluded he had the authority to do so, according to a once-secret internal memo made public by the New York Times in 2017.

Last edited by newyorkguy; 25th April 2019 at 04:20 AM.
newyorkguy 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 25th April 2019, 04:45 AM   #187
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,490
I suppose the AG could still choose to indict...
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 25th April 2019, 04:56 AM   #188
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,168
Trump Tweets

As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself. Nevertheless,....

....Mueller was NOT fired and was respectfully allowed to finish his work on what I, and many others, say was an illegal investigation (there was no crime), headed by a Trump hater who was highly conflicted, and a group of 18 VERY ANGRY Democrats. DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Captain_Swoop 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 25th April 2019, 05:03 AM   #189
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,534
We'd love to drain the swamp, but your hair is clogging the drain.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza 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 25th April 2019, 05:08 AM   #190
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,305
They are VERY angry Democrats now. What did I miss? Last I heard they were just normal angry.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person 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 25th April 2019, 05:14 AM   #191
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,621
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets

(snip) If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didnít need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself.
Ah, so that's where Drewbot took that idea.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 25th April 2019, 05:28 AM   #192
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,534
Don't question the authority of the President.
In particular, don't question whether the President has the authority, because he might not.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza 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 25th April 2019, 05:37 AM   #193
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,050
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets
As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller...
Donnie appears to be contradicting the Mueller Report findings as well, based on McGahn's own testimony. This is all known to Trump. The Tweet is a lie.

Quote:
Page 4, 5 - On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.

Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed.
In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President' s effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle. Report link
Again Trump has attacked the news media for reporting things Trump does not want reported. These attacks on the integrity of the news media are very dangerous and the effects will linger long after Trump is gone from the White House. Trump is essentially attacking the free press: Publish what I like and you're home free. Publish what I don't want published and I will move heaven and earth to try and turn the American public against you and destroy your reputation. What a nightmare.
newyorkguy 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 25th April 2019, 05:45 AM   #194
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,534
Trump just needs to testify under oath, and this can all be sorted out.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza 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 25th April 2019, 06:13 AM   #195
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,705
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
From what Iíve read, itís a policy with some strong legal theory behind it. You canít charge someone and not give them an opportunity to clear their name, usually in criminal court. You canít tie up the President in criminal court because the President has to be available to perform his duties as President and, anyway, the Constitution gave the power to remove a President to Congress, not the Judiciary.
Thanks much. This is just about what I was thinking as well.

After all, while I sure do despise Trump, I really do not want to see him dealing with dozens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of legal challenges while he is in office because such actions could make the Executive branch nonfunctional. Also, I expect that any future President would have the exact same problems since it is nearly certain that some sort of legal challenge could be provided to any President.

Therefore, a better approach is to impeach Trump then throw him out of office, or not re-elect him. In either case, Trump would become a private citizen and as such he could be forced to deal with all of the illegal things that he has done while he was the President and/or before he became the President.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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 25th April 2019, 07:03 AM   #196
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post

Therefore, a better approach is to impeach Trump then throw him out of office, or not re-elect him. In either case, Trump would become a private citizen and as such he could be forced to deal with all of the illegal things that he has done while he was the President and/or before he became the President.
Sounds like the Republic of the Philippines or some other state poorly governed by a colonial power and handed back as a half-baked democracy. "Lock him up". You voted for him, and if not you some of your family or friends.
Zambo 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 25th April 2019, 07:05 AM   #197
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,705
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
Sounds like the Republic of the Philippines or some other state poorly governed by a colonial power and handed back as a half-baked democracy. "Lock him up". You voted for him, and if not you some of your family or friends.
Sorry, but I really cannot determine just what it is that you are trying to say.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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 25th April 2019, 07:16 AM   #198
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,621
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
Sounds like the Republic of the Philippines or some other state poorly governed by a colonial power and handed back as a half-baked democracy. "Lock him up". You voted for him, and if not you some of your family or friends.
And? Congress still has the constitutional power (and obligation) to remove him if they think he's unfit for office, or has committed some sort of crime or offense. They're elected as well.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 25th April 2019, 07:25 AM   #199
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Sorry, but I really cannot determine just what it is that you are trying to say.
What i am "trying to say" is that waiting until Trump (or any other head of state or head of government) is a private citizen and then charging him with crimes when the other party in a 2 party state is in control stinks.

My concluding sentence, the 3rd one, merely pointed out that although not the majority many voters voted for him. I suggest they knew well what they voted for, indeed they wanted exactly what they have received.
Zambo 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 25th April 2019, 07:29 AM   #200
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,869
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Trump just needs to testify under oath, and this can all be sorted out.
"I never had sex with that woman...."
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 01:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.