Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[pgwenthold]

It's really so baffling how utterly incompetent Trump is. On one hand he seems to criticize his spokespersons and underlings because they can't do a good enough job "defending him" yet Trump himself gives them precious little to work with.

Trump is so stupid, impulsive and shortsighted that he doesn't allow his administration any time at all to get their story straight and when he throws a tantrum because of this he makes it far worse by directly contradicting previous statements. Of course his spokespersons try to act like nothing strange is going on, saying that no contradictory statements have been made and their story has been consistent throughout.

It's not baffling to me that Trump is incompetent as President. He was completely unprepared for the position and is clueless about governing or politics.

What is baffling, however, is that there are people who accept and even like this clueless dolt.

As I keep saying, this is not about Trump, it's about the morons who support him. His election in the first place is an indictment on the American electorate.

 

[varwoche]

You don't think colluding with the intelligence service of a foreign country to be elected to public office (in this case the highest elected office), and in the process subverting and corrupting the political system of your country to the benefit of a foreign state, would count as treason?

On top of which, it's already a proven fact that while Russia was helping elect Trump, Trump was doing Russia's bidding in the GOP platform concerning Ukraine. Trump did this in secret. He flat out lied about it.

Sheesh, proof of collusion almost exists in the public domain.

 

[quadraginta]

You don't think colluding with the intelligence service of a foreign country to be elected to public office (in this case the highest elected office), and in the process subverting and corrupting the political system of your country to the benefit of a foreign state, would count as treason?

Not according to the U.S. Constitution.

To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

​

It probably bears pointing out that in this context "Enemies" refers to the declared sort, as in we are at war with them.

Treason convictions are rare in the U.S.

And those convictions sometimes lack merit. "Tokyo Rose" was ultimately exonerated, pardoned, and later given a Citizenship Award by the World War II Veterans Committee.

The Rosenbergs weren't even tried for Treason, contrary to many preconceptions.

 

[BobTheCoward]

On top of which, it's already a proven fact that while Russia was helping elect Trump, Trump was doing Russia's bidding in the GOP platform concerning Ukraine. Trump did this in secret. He flat out lied about it.

Sheesh, proof of collusion almost exists in the public domain.

That is actually not proof. While it doesn't contradict your claim of collusion, it isn't more supportive of that than any other non-contradicted theory.

Here is one alternative: Russia saw a candidate that supported them and acted independently, Trump has been pro Russian and anti Europe for decades and acted on his beliefs.

 

[varwoche]

That is actually not proof. While it doesn't contradict your claim of collusion, it isn't more supportive of that than any other non-contradicted theory.

Which aspect is unproven? There's no dispute that (1) the wording of the gop platform was changed favorable to Russia (2) Trump denied involvement, and (3) it was later revealed that Trump engineered the change.

Maybe it's an overreach for me to say it's proven that the hacks were committed by Russia.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Jonah Goldberg, writing in the National Review, sounds as though he's been reading this thread:

The response from the drivers of the permanent wagon circle, however, is to talk about how the media coverage of Comey’s firing is all overblown. There have been inaccuracies and hyperbole, to be sure. But serious people understand — even if they won’t say so on camera — that Trump has been throwing gasoline on a firestorm for no other reason than that’s what Trump does. I keep hearing from conservatives that the media is driven by a deranged conspiracy theory about the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia. Maybe it is. But I never hear the second shoe drop: Trump seems Hell-bent on convincing people that he’s obsessed with the Russia story and does almost everything he can to keep it alive. Trump’s confession to NBC’s Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of the Russia story, his ridiculous tweets, his letter claiming that Comey told him three times that he wasn’t being investigated: These are not things you do if you want the media, the Democrats, Congress, or the FBI to drop the subject.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Which aspect is unproven? There's no dispute that (1) the wording of the gop platform was changed favorable to Russia (2) Trump denied involvement, and (3) it was later revealed that Trump engineered the change.

Maybe it's an overreach for me to say it's proven that the hacks were committed by Russia.

Collusion. You mentioned proof of collusion.

 

[varwoche]

Collusion. You mentioned proof of collusion.

No, read more carefully please.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, read more carefully please.

You said "proof of collusion almost exists in the public domain." Your 3 facts are nowhere near being proof of collusion.

 

[varwoche]

You said "proof of collusion almost exists in the public domain." Your 3 facts are nowhere near being proof of collusion.

It's the quid pro quo, in open view. All we need is the wink wink.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's the quid pro quo, in open view. All we need is the wink wink.

It is also substantiation of every non quid pro quo theory that it doesn't contradict.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think the point Aridas was making is that you don't have to state outright that you are dismissing someone because they are black. Unless you do it is up to the terminated employee to prove that that was the reason. You can fire them for some ginned -up, bogus reason, or none at all under many jurisdictions.

Right, that doesn't change the law. Still can't fire someone for gender or race. The fact that an employer can invent a pretext isn't relevant to my point.

I think what you mean is "at-will employment". "Right to work" is conservative double-talk labeling of laws which prevent someone from being compelled to join a union when hired for a position in a union shop. It was a way of diminishing the collective bargaining power of unions.

This is correct. It was late, I misspoke.

Or maybe not. Try to sort out which laws are relevant first.

My error aside, fact remains that firing someone for no reason is different than being able to fire them for any reason.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Trump could go on TV and admit that he colluded with the Russians and logger and most other Trump followers wouldn't be bothered by it. They would just say that committing treason makes Trump smart since it helped him defeat Crooked Hillary.

I'd bet money this would be one of the talking points: "This proves what a great leader Trump is; he turned an enemy into a friend."

 

[TraneWreck]

Suppose for the sake of this question that Trump companies have been involved in money laundering. Since that occurred before he became president, is it an impeachable offense. Second, it implies that the Rooskies have a lot of leverage over him, is that relevant to an Amendment 25 action?

Yes. There aren't really any rules for impeachment. Recall that before they dug up the Monica nonsense, Republicans were going after Whitewater, a minor land deal where the Clintons lost money more than a decade before Bill was president. They were trying to impeach over that, but the investigation kept yielding nothing.

The 25th I don't understand that well. Certainly would affect his ability to keep his oath to the Constitution.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes it appears that way when I'm dealing with such extreme leftists and the usual foreigners.

But of course another post of great substance and personal attack from you. I'm sure the mods will let it go.

Stop, you're killing me! I'm lolling like a lolling loller that I never saw it before.

C'mon, tell us all again how Nixon "didn't even know about the half assed burglary." Man!

 

[acbytesla]

Yes. There aren't really any rules for impeachment. Recall that before they dug up the Monica nonsense, Republicans were going after Whitewater, a minor land deal where the Clintons lost money more than a decade before Bill was president. They were trying to impeach over that, but the investigation kept yielding nothing.

The 25th I don't understand that well. Certainly would affect his ability to keep his oath to the Constitution.

Technically, it is high crimes and treason. But those terms are ill-defined. The joke of the matter is the Republicans said it was over Clinton committing perjury in a deposition on questions that didn't belong and had nothing remotely to do with Whitewater which was sex with Monica Lewinsky. Hardly a crime against the US. In contrast. It would be far easier to say that Trump has committed perjury many times in depositions.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes it appears that way when I'm dealing with such extreme leftists and the usual foreigners.

But of course another post of great substance and personal attack from you. I'm sure the mods will let it go.

What is an extreme leftist? Someone left of you?

 

[acbytesla]

The GOP was the minority party in both the Senate and the House. And there were actual moderate Republicans in that era. Domenici, Percy, Brooke, Hatfield, Javits, Fong, etc... By that point a lot of those old boys would've turned against him and the Southern Strategy wasn't really in play, the Dems still held much of the south.

If the GOP thought they could muster the votes to stave off impeachment, they would've ridden it out. The House was similar to the Senate. Enough moderate or anti-Nixon to be more accurate votes to probably get impeachment through.

Senate - 57 Dems 41 Reps 2 Oth - both voting Rep
House - 241 - 192 - 5 vacancies

The informal straw polls of the parties at the time had it that it might pass but might not. Whatever, it was going to be a brutal fight.

Remember, we lived in a different world back then. When Johnson handed Humphrey proof of Nixon's October Surprise in 1968, Hubert wouldn't use it!!!! Imagine that in 2017!!?? They actually had some respect for the institutions and traditions.

After the tapes were released support for Nixon by at least half the Republican party disappeared. The House was set to impeach him in 2 days sending it over to the Senate for trial and the informal whip count suggested that Nixon could count on at most 10 votes in the Senate. Impeachment and removal was foregone conclusion. Logger simply is full of it about Nixon. There was no conspiracy to 'get Nixon'. It's laughable to even suggest that. There is little doubt that Nixon very much knew and was involved in the planning of multiple crimes including the Watergate burglaries.

The difference today is the GOP has majorities in both houses. The Republicans may think that they can just dismiss Trump's potential crimes and get away with it given they control it all. But Nixon was a very different story. He was toast and it was very right to remove him from office.

 

[fuelair]

I still think that if Trump gets impeached (and convicted) because of Russian collusion, Gorsuch needs to either resign or risk impeachment himself.

Either way, throw the **** out!!!!

 

[Aridas]

You don't think colluding with the intelligence service of a foreign country to be elected to public office (in this case the highest elected office), and in the process subverting and corrupting the political system of your country to the benefit of a foreign state, would count as treason?

Probably not, in the legal sense. You could likely make a case for it being a high crime without too much difficulty, but treason is defined much more narrowly.