Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Oh, ye of great faith! I lost all trust in the American electorate's intelligence on election night. So far, I've seen nothing but confirmation of that opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I also never had much faith the Democrats had yet learned how to market their narrative. People suggested to me that it changed with Obama, now they're going to compete with the Karl Roves and Frank Luntzs of the GOP. But Clinton proved that wasn't true. Her message was weak: "I'm with her" and her policies were not sellable in little sound bites.

But most of all, they failed to stop or even compete with Trump TV. And it's going to happen again which is why we need impeachment hearings. And Pelosi doesn't get it.
 
I am surprised and dismayed about how much Mueller and other actual Conservative Republicans put the burden of fixing the Trump issue on Democrats instead of their own Party.

Mueller seems to have given up on the GOP if he'd rather slink back into the shadows instead of confronting the Apparatchiks who have made a pact with a criminal demagogue in return for power.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I am surprised and dismayed about how much Mueller and other actual Conservative Republicans put the burden of fixing the Trump issue on Democrats instead of their own Party.

Mueller seems to have given up on the GOP if he'd rather slink back into the shadows instead of confronting the Apparatchiks who have made a pact with a criminal demagogue in return for power.
Click to expand...
These are important points. :thumbsup:
 
Xabre said:
This coming from an obvious Uber Alt Left Automaton, who has ( probably through no fault of his own) indulged in far too much Kool-Aid, and being transfixed upon the letters CNN and/ or MSLSD.... only to find incessant Trump bashing with not a shred of fact to back their collective Vitriolic Rhetoric up....but then what can one expect from Cable news outlets who have no Journalistic integrity no ethics, and have no problem bashing the 1st Amendment evidenced by their Borg like abuse of it.
Click to expand...

Learn your place. You don't tell me what my political leanings are. I'm no liberal. I'm just anti stupid and anti treason. You are obviously pro both.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I am surprised and dismayed about how much Mueller and other actual Conservative Republicans put the burden of fixing the Trump issue on Democrats instead of their own Party.

Mueller seems to have given up on the GOP if he'd rather slink back into the shadows instead of confronting the Apparatchiks who have made a pact with a criminal demagogue in return for power.
Click to expand...

Mmm. At least it's looking like there's beginning to be some pushback by Republicans. The "Republicans for the Rule of Law" are making some waves, at least. With that said, though, it's been something of an ongoing issue that actual Conservatives are telling Democrats to solve the problems that they caused, having apparently given up on the Republican Party to do the right thing, willingly or otherwise.
 
Suppose a DA had a police report that showed that a powerful person in his district had committed some serious crimes, and the DA decided not to pursue it because he believed that it would politically costly for him. We'd consider him a bad person for putting career considerations above his duty to the public.

Why is it different for Congress? If they (in this case, House Democrats) believe that there's sufficient evidence that Trump committed significant crimes, how can they ethically not impeach?

Of course, the Senate may simply ignore it or vote that Trump is really a great guy, and that would be unethical of the Senate, but the House can't control that. If the House doesn't impeach, then the House Democrats are being unethical so that the Senate Republicans can ethically ignore Trump's crimes.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
Suppose a DA had a police report that showed that a powerful person in his district had committed some serious crimes, and the DA decided not to pursue it because he believed that it would politically costly for him. We'd consider him a bad person for putting career considerations above his duty to the public.

Why is it different for Congress? If they (in this case, House Democrats) believe that there's sufficient evidence that Trump committed significant crimes, how can they ethically not impeach?

Of course, the Senate may simply ignore it or vote that Trump is really a great guy, and that would be unethical of the Senate, but the House can't control that. If the House doesn't impeach, then the House Democrats are being unethical so that the Senate Republicans can ethically ignore Trump's crimes.
Click to expand...

It would be unethical for the DA to charge if the actual trial would be a sham. He or she wouldnt be able to satisfy their role as a prosecutor and that would be unjust.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It would be unethical for the DA to charge if the actual trial would be a sham. He or she wouldnt be able to satisfy their role as a prosecutor and that would be unjust.
Click to expand...

Why would it be a sham? And isn't the prosecutor's role to present the facts to the judge/jury for them to decide? It's unethical if the prosecutor believes that the facts aren't compelling, but should a DA decline to prosecute if he believes that the defendant might tamper with the jury?
 
dasmiller said:
Why would it be a sham? And isn't the prosecutor's role to present the facts to the judge/jury for them to decide? It's unethical if the prosecutor believes that the facts aren't compelling, but should a DA decline to prosecute if he believes that the defendant might tamper with the jury?
Click to expand...

In the case of impeachment, there doesnt exist an arbiter to present facts to. McConnell has already hinted that it would make it a sham.
 
Trebuchet said:
Can you impeach a cabinet member?
Click to expand...

William W. Belknap

Impeached unanimously by the House. A majority of the Senate, but not the required super majority, voted to convict. He resigned. I think he actually resigned before the vote in the Senate. Wiki article says he resigned even before impeachment proceedings.

Locking someone up as a result of impeachment is not an option. Removal from office is the only thing a conviction in the Senate can do. Any "locking up" has to happen in a separate, normal, trial.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
Good point, I was not specific enough. Foreign commentary on our elections is fine, but not foreign commentary that masquerades as something it is not. That should keep the BBC, etc, inside the wheelhouse.
Click to expand...

Foreign commentary may be fine, but in our hysterical political climate created by the Left, where if Trump even breathes he is guilty of treason, completely different standards are assigned to Trump.

For instance Italian member of the European Parliament, Gianni Pittella, campaigned for Hillary Clinton. From Time magazine:

- http://time.com/4429904/dnc-hillary-clinton-italian-europe/

“I have taken the unprecedented step of endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton because the risk of Donald Trump is too high,” Pittella told TIME. “I believe it is in the interest of the European Union and Italy to have Hillary Clinton in office. A Trump victory could be a disaster for the relationship between the U.S.A. and Italy.”

So foreign interests wanted Hillary Clinton in power. Yet no one on the Left seems the slightest bit bothered by this. Now imagine if a politician from the Russian Duma attended and spoke at a campaign rally for Trump. The Left would go into an apoplectic rage, demanding investigations, impeachment and treason trials. They would certainly want to ban all Russian politicians from campaigning on behalf of American politicians. Yet a foreign politician from Italy campaigns for Hillary Clinton and it doesn't even register on their outrage meter at all.

This shows that this Russian interference nonsense is just a pretext to get rid of Trump, in other words a coup attempt.

Belz... said:
That wasn't what you asked, though. Are you now changing your request?

Are you accusing the FBI and DOJ, and allied intelligence agencies, of fabricating this?
Click to expand...

I asked what false belief did Americans have due to a Russian disinformation campaign. I gave examples of false beliefs Americans had due to western intelligence and western media.

p.s. I would never accuse our pure, pristine and sacralized intelligence agencies of making up or promoting BS.

Skeptic Ginger said:
People need to stop looking at this like a successful impeachment and instead look at it like a successful campaign to expose the truth.
Click to expand...

So are we going to discover if Joseph Mifsud is really a Russian agent or not?
 
tanabear said:
Foreign commentary may be fine, but in our hysterical political climate created by the Left, where if Trump even breathes he is guilty of treason, completely different standards are assigned to Trump.

For instance Italian member of the European Parliament, Gianni Pittella, campaigned for Hillary Clinton. From Time magazine:

- http://time.com/4429904/dnc-hillary-clinton-italian-europe/

“I have taken the unprecedented step of endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton because the risk of Donald Trump is too high,” Pittella told TIME. “I believe it is in the interest of the European Union and Italy to have Hillary Clinton in office. A Trump victory could be a disaster for the relationship between the U.S.A. and Italy.”

So foreign interests wanted Hillary Clinton in power. Yet no one on the Left seems the slightest bit bothered by this. Now imagine if a politician from the Russian Duma attended and spoke at a campaign rally for Trump. The Left would go into an apoplectic rage, demanding investigations, impeachment and treason trials. They would certainly want to ban all Russian politicians from campaigning on behalf of American politicians. Yet a foreign politician from Italy campaigns for Hillary Clinton and it doesn't even register on their outrage meter at all.

This shows that this Russian interference nonsense is just a pretext to get rid of Trump, in other words a coup attempt.
Click to expand...
On the one hand, I agree that Dems and the left are not immune to over-reaction, etc. (Although I think that some of what you might call over-reaction about the left to Trump I wouldn't, but, still . . . .)

On the other hand, foreign leaders endorse U.S. presidential candidates all the time. Here's a list of foreign leaders who endorsed Obama in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...mpaign_endorsements#Foreign_political_figures Here's a list (albeit a short one) of foreign leaders who endorsed Romney in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._endorsements#International_political_figures. No one made a fuss about either of these.

Also, you're forgetting some differences: Italy is an ally of the U.S., but Russia isn't an ally of the U.S. Italy is in NATO, which requires all members to aid another that is attacked, but Russia isn't in NATO.

You also didn't address my point about the duplicity of Russian attempts to influence our election. Transparency is an important distinction between what Putin did to influence our election and what Pittella, the Italian politician, did. Putin did what he did in secret, Pittella was in plain view.

So an enemy of the U.S. using secret means to influence our election is a different thing than a political of an allied country endorsing or even campaigning for a candidate.

Lastly, "the Left" is not a monolith. You can have some on the Left over-react while others don't, so the mere fact that some on the Left - even many on the Left - would be outraged if a Russian politician campaigned for Trump doesn't mean that the FBI did not exercise due diligence by starting the investigation into Trump's campaign.
 
dasmiller said:
Suppose a DA had a police report that showed that a powerful person in his district had committed some serious crimes, and the DA decided not to pursue it because he believed that it would politically costly for him. We'd consider him a bad person for putting career considerations above his duty to the public.

Why is it different for Congress? If they (in this case, House Democrats) believe that there's sufficient evidence that Trump committed significant crimes, how can they ethically not impeach?

Of course, the Senate may simply ignore it or vote that Trump is really a great guy, and that would be unethical of the Senate, but the House can't control that. If the House doesn't impeach, then the House Democrats are being unethical so that the Senate Republicans can ethically ignore Trump's crimes.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
BobTheCoward said:
In the case of impeachment, there doesnt exist an arbiter to present facts to. McConnell has already hinted that it would make it a sham.
Click to expand...
WTF?

An arbiter to present facts? That is a stupid, yes stupid, assertion. What do you think happens in an impeachment, the House just drafts it?

Ever hear of Congressional hearings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom