• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
His forging of the message for Jr., the emails Jr. released that show some pretty sketchy communication, etc. There's enough there where I'm convinced as well.
Click to expand...

That he wrote his son's false statement to Congress. I forgot that one for a moment is borderline witness tampering. Trump is lying about what happened and is encouraging others to lie as well.
 
davefoc said:
I appreciate the objectivity your post suggests. A few points:
1. The evidence that Trump fired Comey to end the Russian investigation and protect Flynn involves other evidence than I listed in my post that acbytesla responded to as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for practical purposes it is knowable that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

2. My point was not that firing Comey to halt the Russian investigation was or should be an impeachable offense. It was that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice by firing Comey. I would hesitate to bring an impeachment against a sitting president if this was the only crime I believed he had committed.

3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose. Right now a significant percentage of the country is under the thrall of Fox News which lies and obfuscates every day about the Mueller investigation and by doing so maintains a significant segment of the population believing that Trump is being unfairly treated by the Mueller investigation. Given the success of Fox News and other partisan media has had with this campaign I believe that the best interests of the nation are served by waiting to see what is discovered by the Mueller investigation and only proceeding with an impeachment if serious criminality by Trump is uncovered that is significant enough that Fox News is forced to abandon its pro-Trump campaign. This will allow cover for enough Republican legislators to move to remove Trump.

4. There is reason to believe based on Trump's actions he has been seriously compromised by his Russian connections. That is the kind of criminality that I think would be enough to unite the country around the need for impeachment and conviction of Trump. I don't think evidence that Trump is actually compromised by Russia or Russian crime families is known to the public right now.
Click to expand...

Your third point is precisely where I stand.
 
davefoc said:
4. There is reason to believe based on Trump's actions he has been seriously compromised by his Russian connections.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?
 
Cain said:
As Trump's lawyers' memo makes clear: The president could murder Comey and not be prosecuted for it. Now, of course, he would never do such a thing, but if he did, the appropriate Constitutional process would be impeachment. This just means that Trump should execute Democrats in Congress.
Click to expand...

You still cant get past the simple fact that we have the system we have. If your side wants to change it, they need to first win elections,then change it. The first is quite a tall order, if they did, bet they wouldn’t change it.
 
Giz said:
Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?
Click to expand...

Dude literally had to be legally forced to put economic sanctions on Russia, freely gave up secret information in a private meeting with a Russian representative, proposed bringing Russia back into the G7 while alienating US allies, and almost never fails to wax favorably about Putin. How has Trump even been tough on Russia?


ETA: or did I fall for a Poe?
 
Giz said:
Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?
Click to expand...

How? There have been a couple things that were obviously done for show and had little real effect, that unsurprisingly and conveniently happened while the news was more loudly talking about the question of why Trump's sucking up to Putin so much. Even the sanctions were largely questionable and only put in place after a lot of resisting (which also gave those affected plenty of time to prepare and minimize their losses). And then there's the question of enforcement. Has Trump been enforcing them? The last burst of news on that subject suggests that no, he really hasn't.

Trump has been a gift that just keeps giving to Putin since before he even became President. Trying to make direct comparisons to Obama and Hillary, of course, is... odd, on the other hand, given the notably different situations that Obama was dealing with, and that Hillary was never the President. That Trump's been overwhelmingly more pro-Russia than either, though, should be really, really, really obvious to anyone paying attention.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
<snip>

3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose.

<snip>
Click to expand...


The GOP in the House of Representatives in 1998 (bless their shriveled black hearts), more than a few of whom are still serving, set that standard for us. Lying under oath about something as inconsequential as a single sexual encounter between consenting adults is sufficient grounds for impeachment.

Has Trump reached that threshold? Of course he has.There seems to be little doubt that he has lied under oath multiple times over issues far more serious than a single sexual encounter between consenting adults.

Has he lied under oath while President? Not yet, maybe. But only because he has not been compelled to testify under oath ... yet. Judging by his apparently congenital inability to tell the truth about anything at all, even when it is to his own, personal benefit to do so, there can be little doubt that once under oath, he would lie some more. (Which is probably (certainly?) why he has resisted being put under oath since taking office.)

Would the GOP Representatives in the House maintain the same standard today that they established in 1998?

Of course they wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
The GOP in the House of Representatives in 1998 (bless their shriveled black hearts), more than a few of whom are still serving, set that standard for us. Lying under oath about something as inconsequential as a single sexual encounter between consenting adults is sufficient grounds for impeachment.

Has Trump reached that threshold? Of course he has.There seems to be little doubt that he has lied under oath multiple times over issues far more serious than a single sexual encounter between consenting adults.

Has he lied under oath while President? Not yet, maybe. But only because he has not been compelled to testify under oath ... yet. Judging by his apparently congenital inability to tell the truth about anything at all, even when it is to his own, personal benefit to do so, there can be little doubt that once under oath, he would lie some more. (Which is probably (certainly?) why he has resisted being put under oath since taking office.)

Would the GOP Representatives in the House maintain the same standard today that they established in 1998?

Of course they wouldn't.
Click to expand...

When has he lied under oath?
 
logger said:
acbytesla said:
This is extremely well said. :thumbsup: :D I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.
Click to expand...

Another reason why a jury would not side with you.
Click to expand...


Is it your contention that "beyond reasonable doubt" and "100 percent certainty" are the same thing under U.S. law?

Do you think that a judge should offer such a standard as an instruction to a jury?
 
Trebuchet said:
Trump:
The appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Despite that, we play the game because I, unlike the Democrats, have done nothing wrong!
Click to expand...

Loser Liberal: The Terrible Arguments Against the Constitutionality of the Mueller Investigation

The loser is Kellyane Conway's husband.
Click to expand...


Obviously a RINO.

Under the new, revised definition which is; "anyone who has said or written anything which fails to be completely, unreservedly in support of Trump or any of his cronies".
 
logger said:
You still cant get past the simple fact that we have the system we have. If your side wants to change it, they need to first win elections,then change it. The first is quite a tall order, if they did, bet they wouldn’t change it.
Click to expand...

You're actually correct that I cannot tolerate the system we have -- in part because even if my side (the Green Party) -- did manage to win elections, they still couldn't change it. It's virtually impossible to abolish the Senate. As for Republicans and Democrats, you're being obtuse. Each side wins, and then implements changes to consolidate power.

Of course, nothing in your answer has anything to do with the original point. It's just all-purpose fluff -- like most of your posts.
 
After all that Bill Clinton's speech in Russia being linked to Uranium One as reason to believe that Clintons are more corrupt than Trump... I do have to wonder how that's being held up in comparison to the very numerous cases of Trump literally using campaign and government funds to enrich himself.
 
Cain said:
You're actually correct that I cannot tolerate the system we have -- in part because even if my side (the Green Party) -- did manage to win elections, they still couldn't change it. It's virtually impossible to abolish the Senate. As for Republicans and Democrats, you're being obtuse. Each side wins, and then implements changes to consolidate power.
Click to expand...

That’s why it’s best to join a party, a real party....and work within it.
Of course, nothing in your answer has anything to do with the original point. It's just all-purpose fluff -- like most of your posts.
Click to expand...

lol

:id:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom