Ed Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
Because we are having a conversation and I am asking you what you think.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. Well I appreciate that. I'm that case, I would respond to this

For me it is simple, no President can place himself above and beyond justice. To allow that would tear at the fabric of democracy as there would be no consequences for illegal actions.
Click to expand...

Let's call that condition X. I read your position as...

-interpret Constitution
-evaluate if it produces condition X
-if true, change interpretation.

My position is that the result of the interpretation is irrelevant.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Oh, okay. Well I appreciate that. I'm that case, I would respond to this



Let's call that condition X. I read your position as...

-interpret Constitution
-evaluate if it produces condition X
-if true, change interpretation.

My position is that the result of the interpretation is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, not quite. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. It wasn't created so America goes down with the ship.

The idea behind it's writing was that it was a guide line for an en enduring government that promotes justice, ensures domestic tranquillity and the general welfare. So, when the details are murky and an interpretation of a certain passage runs counter to the goals of the document as a whole, what do you do? You change the interpretation.

This is why we have both Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education of Topeka.
 
acbytesla said:
No, not quite. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. It wasn't created so America goes down with the ship.

The idea behind it's writing was that it was a guide line for an en enduring government that promotes justice, ensures domestic tranquillity and the general welfare. So, when the details are murky and an interpretation of a certain passage runs counter to the goals of the document as a whole, what do you do? You change the interpretation.

This is why we have both Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education of Topeka.
Click to expand...

I always say it is a suicide pact. You said "murky." Suppose it was not murky that it was the correct position and produced bad results. What then?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I always say it is a suicide pact. You said "murky." Suppose it was not murky that it was the correct position and produced bad results. What then?
Click to expand...

That's another story. The answer is you amend the Constitution. Easier said than done I know. Fortunately, overall, I think the founders did a petty good job. But certainly, I see things I would have done differently.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Oh, okay. Well I appreciate that. I'm that case, I would respond to this



Let's call that condition X. I read your position as...

-interpret Constitution
-evaluate if it produces condition X
-if true, change interpretation.
Click to expand...

The Constitution as a document is meant to be interpreted and potentially re-interpreted as needed. There is even a specific body (The Supreme Court) designated to have final say on this task, and the framers overall goal of setting up a functions democracy with clear division of powers plus checks and balances is considered.
 
A tweet

@jefftiedrich
59 minutes ago

Brief history of excuses:
1. There was no collusion
2. Maybe there was but I didn't know about it
3. Maybe I knew but so what
4. Lots of people collude
5. It's not illegal when the president does it
6. What about Hillary?
8. You can't indict a president
9. I'll just pardon myself
 
lomiller said:
The Constitution as a document is meant to be interpreted and potentially re-interpreted as needed. There is even a specific body (The Supreme Court) designated to have final say on this task, and the framers overall goal of setting up a functions democracy with clear division of powers plus checks and balances is considered.
Click to expand...

Something that will end the republic doesn't seem to count as a need.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Something that will end the republic doesn't seem to count as a need.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you get that. Does the US Constitution have flaws? Most definitely

However, James Madison and that body of leaders created the longest lasting governing document of any nation on the planet.
 
plague311 said:
Care to back that up and say which part is spin
Click to expand...
The title of the article was "Watergate prosecutor: Giuliani has admitted Mueller has good obstruction case"

The article leads off by saying "A former Watergate prosecutor said late Tuesday that President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani basically "admitted" that special counsel Robert Mueller has a good case for obstruction of justice."

All of that is spin and interpretation. What the Watergate Lawyer claims is that Giuliani said "'Oh I'm fine with collusion because there’s no collusion, but obstruction, that’s a matter of interpretation".

He didn't admit anything at all. And he definitely didn't admit that there's a good case for obstruction. The entire article is a masterpiece of speculative insinuation made "fact".

plague311 said:
or just spit the standard "fake news" line you people seem so proud of?

I'm constantly astonished at Trump supporters willingness to spin things and the amount of liberties they take with accuracy. You'd think I'd get used to it... But now, I'm still taken aback by crappy excuses on a regular basis.

Please amaze me with your, "I'm not a Trump supporter I just insert_random_flawed_reasoning_here."

Watching Trump supporters deny this **** when staring at a massive pile of evidence is downright embarrassing. I'm almost embarrassed reading it.
Click to expand...

Also, please take your "you people" and "trump supporters" and all the rest of your condescension and go sit on it in a dark place until it hatches into something worth reading.
 
Emily's Cat said:
The title of the article was "Watergate prosecutor: Giuliani has admitted Mueller has good obstruction case"

The article leads off by saying "A former Watergate prosecutor said late Tuesday that President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani basically "admitted" that special counsel Robert Mueller has a good case for obstruction of justice."

All of that is spin and interpretation. What the Watergate Lawyer claims is that Giuliani said "'Oh I'm fine with collusion because there’s no collusion, but obstruction, that’s a matter of interpretation".

He didn't admit anything at all. And he definitely didn't admit that there's a good case for obstruction. The entire article is a masterpiece of speculative insinuation made "fact".
Click to expand...

It's interpretation. That'd be the only way you could phrase it. Just because it's an interpretation that you don't agree with doesn't mean it's "spin". It means you don't like it. Which means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Emily's Cat said:
Also, please take your "you people" and "trump supporters" and all the rest of your condescension and go sit on it in a dark place until it hatches into something worth reading.
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot, we're doing this whole "I'm not a trump supporter, I'm just playing devils advocate" or "I haven't decided" or "I'm a skeptic so I'll wait for something more concrete" or whatever catchy excuse of the week is.

If you don't want to read it, don't. I'm certainly not forcing you to respond to a 2+ day old post.

Emily's Cat said:
Nevermind - already covered.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's called a weak whataboutism. Covered about as well as it can be.
 
Emily's Cat said:
The title of the article was "Watergate prosecutor: Giuliani has admitted Mueller has good obstruction case"

The article leads off by saying "A former Watergate prosecutor said late Tuesday that President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani basically "admitted" that special counsel Robert Mueller has a good case for obstruction of justice."

All of that is spin and interpretation. What the Watergate Lawyer claims is that Giuliani said "'Oh I'm fine with collusion because there’s no collusion, but obstruction, that’s a matter of interpretation".

He didn't admit anything at all. And he definitely didn't admit that there's a good case for obstruction. The entire article is a masterpiece of speculative insinuation made "fact".
Click to expand...
To the extent spin and interpretation occurred, it's not clear to me from the article in The Hill (that's the article in question, yes?) if it's the Watergate Lawyer or the journalist who is the spinner/interpreter.
 
Re Trump's tweet today:

L'etat, Ces't Moi.

Motto of the French Bourbon Kings.

Donnie needs to remember what happened to them.....
 
Captain_Swoop said:
A tweet

@jefftiedrich
59 minutes ago

Brief history of excuses:
1. There was no collusion
2. Maybe there was but I didn't know about it
3. Maybe I knew but so what
4. Lots of people collude
5. It's not illegal when the president does it
6. What about Hillary?
8. You can't indict a president
9. I'll just pardon myself
Click to expand...

10. I Am The State.
 
Government is petitioning to revoke Manafort's bail because they have evidence he's tried to contact witnesses in the case.
 
chrispy said:
Tampering, complete with encrypted messages designed to mold testimony. :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Yeah, and phone calls as well. It's way beyond "Hello, how you doing?"

Can they use this at trial as well as evidence for the original charges - or is it new charges to come?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom