Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

IMO i think the democrats are clearly afraid impeaching him would backfire. Which certainly could happen but it could also go in their favor in 2020. Their responsibility though is country first and party second.

Yeah, I just don't know.

There is zero chance he gets convicted in the Senate, even if there was a mountain of evidence presented.  Because the Republicans have CLEARLY prioritized power over country (or principal).  So, at the end of this, if you impeach him before 2020, even if he's guilty as hell, he gets off scott free.  AND he gets to use that in his campaign, even if it looks like a kangaroo court. You thought "no collusion. No obstruction" was bad?  Wait until he has a not guilty impeachment verdict in his back pocket.

But, if they just keep kicking the ball down the road, they are not doing their job.  There is clearly something here, concerning the president's behavior and his campaign, that needs to be litigated here.  And publicly.

If the Dems ignore that Constitutional onus, just to protect themselves politically...aren't they doing the same thing as the Republicans are in protecting the president?

I suspect they will fight this all out in court, and see what happens. By the time they have permission (or don't) to get all the info they want, we're likely into late 2019 or early 2020.  At that point, you actually hold the congressional investigations to GET the information you wanted, and plow through it.  It's now mid-2020.

You take the temp of the population and see whats what.

I totally see the Dems point of not wanting to give Repubs a rallying cry that costs the Dems the 2020 elections (both Senate...which is not a great setup for the Repubs as it is...and the Presidency).  You'd lose both the battle and the war.

But I just don't know if you can ignore this.  Or, rather, if you SHOULD ignore this. 

Stay tuned?

[PermissionToLand]

"Just because we could not find the evidence does not mean it does not exist"

This needs to be plastered on 100 foot billboards across the country.

IMO i think the democrats are clearly afraid impeaching him would backfire. Which certainly could happen but it could also go in their favor in 2020. Their responsibility though is country first and party second.

Yeah, I just don't know.

There is zero chance he gets convicted in the Senate, even if there was a mountain of evidence presented.  Because the Republicans have CLEARLY prioritized power over country (or principal).  So, at the end of this, if you impeach him before 2020, even if he's guilty as hell, he gets off scott free.  AND he gets to use that in his campaign, even if it looks like a kangaroo court. You thought "no collusion. No obstruction" was bad?  Wait until he has a not guilty impeachment verdict in his back pocket.

But, if they just keep kicking the ball down the road, they are not doing their job.  There is clearly something here, concerning the president's behavior and his campaign, that needs to be litigated here.  And publicly.

If the Dems ignore that Constitutional onus, just to protect themselves politically...aren't they doing the same thing as the Republicans are in protecting the president?

I suspect they will fight this all out in court, and see what happens. By the time they have permission (or don't) to get all the info they want, we're likely into late 2019 or early 2020.  At that point, you actually hold the congressional investigations to GET the information you wanted, and plow through it.  It's now mid-2020.

You take the temp of the population and see whats what.

I totally see the Dems point of not wanting to give Repubs a rallying cry that costs the Dems the 2020 elections (both Senate...which is not a great setup for the Repubs as it is...and the Presidency).  You'd lose both the battle and the war.

But I just don't know if you can ignore this.  Or, rather, if you SHOULD ignore this. 

Stay tuned?

Impeachment would give Trump the ultimate victim card. And without the senate to convict, it means nothing. I don't give a flying fuck about the symbolic victory of impeachment. And not impeaching is not ignoring. There are many other ways to impeach (in the informal sense) his credibility, which they are doing right now anyway; digging for his tax returns, looking into his foreign business dealings, etc.

For once, I am with Pelosi.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

"Just because we could not find the evidence does not mean it does not exist"

Guilty until proven innocent? That isn't how the justice system works.  Just because there was no evidence of me flying to Miami by flapping my arms and taking flight doesn't mean it didn't happen   

Just because we could not find the evidence does not mean it does exist means the same thing.

[PermissionToLand]

"Just because we could not find the evidence does not mean it does not exist"

Guilty until proven innocent? That isn't how the justice system works.  Just because there was no evidence of me flying to Miami by flapping my arms and taking flight doesn't mean it didn't happen   

Just because we could not find the evidence does not mean it does exist means the same thing.

BECAUSE OF OBSTRUCTION.

Are you hard of hearing or just terrible at reading comprehension? Oy vey...

[tim_m]

Mueller explicitly said if there was no evidence of obstruction he would have said so in the report. This isn't rocket science. That statement alone makes it quite clear evidence exists. He just wouldn't make the accusation because of the long standing ruling of not indicting a president. So he punted to congress to use their powers in a forum where they can charge the president and he can defend himself. As for coordinating with Russia to conspire to steal the election. We will probably never know because of people refusing to cooperate. Did they refuse to cooperate to cover up that or are they just stupid? I don't know. Did Trump order his staff to interfere to cover up or is he stupid and couldn't help himself? Just cause he attempted to interfere doesn't mean he was covering up coordination with Russia though. Trump has a history of doing really stupid shit that looks really bad even if he had done nothing wrong. Any American regardless of political affiliation should hope that if everyone had cooperated fully and Mueller was able to get all possible evidence he wanted that he would say no coordination. The simple fact Trump tried to interfere would indicate he was afraid of something in particular wold have been found. People with nothing to hide cooperate and do not interfere in an investigation. If they had nothing to hide they would've fully cooperated and Mueller would've said nothing to see here move along now.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

"Just because we could not find the evidence does not mean it does not exist"

Guilty until proven innocent? That isn't how the justice system works.  Just because there was no evidence of me flying to Miami by flapping my arms and taking flight doesn't mean it didn't happen   

Just because we could not find the evidence does not mean it does exist means the same thing.

BECAUSE OF OBSTRUCTION.

Are you hard of hearing or just terrible at reading comprehension? Oy vey...

 

[jarmo]

Are you hard of hearing or just terrible at reading comprehension? Oy vey...

What does that make you?

I've asked people to be nice and respectful of differing opinions.

No need for that shit.




/jarmo

[pilferk]

"Just because we could not find the evidence does not mean it does not exist"

Guilty until proven innocent? That isn't how the justice system works.  Just because there was no evidence of me flying to Miami by flapping my arms and taking flight doesn't mean it didn't happen   

In a vaccum? No.

With the context of a solid case for obstruction? Yes.

Or, rather, you don't assume their guilt, but you tackle the fact that their obstruction likely prevented you from gathering the evidence necessary to prove the first charge. 

The point is: The special council thinks one of the reasons they couldn't find evidence is because Trump and others obstructed the investigation, and prevented them from finding it.

Again, this is layed out, clearly, both IN THE REPORT (which you should definitely read) and in Mueller's comments.

You can't simply take the first statement that you quoted and poo poo it without the added context as to WHY.

Just because we could not find the evidence does not mean it does exist means the same thing.

No, it absolutely does not, given the context, which you are either desperately trying to ignore or are willfully refusing to acknowledge.  I'm not sure which it is, but at this point its been laid out clearly to everyone willing to listen/read.

There are two options, both equally possible:

There is no evidence to find.

The evidence exists but the obstruction efforts prevented it from being found.

You can choose to believe the first, but you can't deny the case has been made for obstruction, which weakens that stance substantially.

If there is evidence that a person burns the body, destroys the murder weapon, cleans up the scene of all forensic evidence, and then refuses to answer law enforcement questions, directly....you can believe they're not the murderer.  And there's no/minimal evidence showing that they committed the crime of murder.  But there's certainly signs they obstructed the investigation, impeding law enforcement from figuring out if they DID commit the crime.

Is that a little clearer?

[PermissionToLand]

Are you hard of hearing or just terrible at reading comprehension? Oy vey...

What does that make you?

I've asked people to be nice and respectful of differing opinions.

No need for that shit.




/jarmo

... and nothing to say about his trolling?

Christ, this is like letting your kid repeatedly pull a dog's tail and yelling at the dog when it finally bites. You're completely ignoring the deliberate antagonism that leads to insults. Mean words are bad but psychological games are okay? And I also pointed out several insults from that other troll but you never call him out...

[PermissionToLand]

 

AHEM...

[pilferk]

Impeachment would give Trump the ultimate victim card. And without the senate to convict, it means nothing. I don't give a flying fuck about the symbolic victory of impeachment. And not impeaching is not ignoring. There are many other ways to impeach (in the informal sense) his credibility, which they are doing right now anyway; digging for his tax returns, looking into his foreign business dealings, etc.

For once, I am with Pelosi.

The problem is, to get the information they need to get out to the public, eventually they are going to shit or get off the pot.  Because the courts will give them leeway on some stuff, but eventually, to compel people to testify, they are going to need to launch some sort of umbrella action to convince the courts to enforce congressional subpoenas with arrest warrants.  Traditionally, there are some civil penalties they can impose...but even those have had mixed enforcement in the courts (again, they have to prove that the testimony has some sort of negative congressional impact).

I am not FOR impeachment, for exactly the reasons you lay out.

I am not AGAINST impeachment, for exactly the reasons I've laid out.

I think you slow roll the entire thing to give him as little political aid as you can. But I think ABANDONING the roll is a dereliction of their Constitutional duty.

Hell, if it were possible, I'd hold over the THREAT of impeachment right up until right after the 2020 election....without using it as a campaign promise or platform.  Then, the week after, reelected or not, you draft and sign the articles of impeachment. And if you're Pelosi, in the meantime, you tell people: We are continuing our investigations, but our focus is on making life better for the American People.  The committees that need to provide oversight will continue to do so, while the rest of us work on kitchen table issues.  If and when those committees have suggestions for next step, and information to present to the entire House, we will give it due consideration and act as our Congressional duties demand.

BUT, during the next 18 months, you also have to, as Pelosi said, walk and chew gum at the same time.  They need to do a better job of getting the legislation they are passing, on a regular basis, to the fore front of the news cycle, and demonstrate that they are trying to do their jobs...while the Senate obstructs the agenda that the people voted for in November 2018.

The Equality Act that just passed a couple weeks ago is a great example.  Every Dem house rep interviewed that's asked about impeachment should slip in a mention of this act passing the House.  Letting the conversation be 100% about impeachment, all the time, every time, almost forces them to campaign on that issue into 2020.  They should certainly talk about it, since it's in the public's conversation right now.  But they need to make sure they are championing, and talking about, the things they are sending to the Senate that the Senate is just flat out ignoring.

The House has ALREADY passed close to a dozen pieces of legislation that speak directly to their 2018 agenda.  And they get next to no press.  We've seen it evidenced here by some of the conservative posters who insist they've done NOTHING but investigate the President since January...and that's simply not true.

The Dems need to do the exact thing they have proven so terrible at over the past decade: Take control the political discourse and messaging.  They are incredibly bad at this.  They let the Repubs control the topics.  They are too reactionary and not proactive enough.  They need to mix the conversation so that it's both kitchen table AND oversight.  If they somehow manage to do that, they'll be in good shape.  But they have to stop ONLY chasing the shiny objects that are this presidents hallmark.  All the bad behavior is dominating the conversation.  Which isn't to say it shouldn't be PART of the conversation.  But the Dems need to continue to push their IDEAS, too.  And, with some exceptions, they are letting those ideas get lost in the noise of the presidents near DAILY fuck ups.

The fuck ups are like train wrecks, so I get it's somewhat hard to get your signal over the noise, but they have to find a way.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

 

AHEM...

The all caps and calling me stupid in your post makes it look like you are mad.

[pilferk]

Also this should tell you all you need to know about the current state of the Republican party (And yes, it's from August of last year):

Republicans block $250 million to beef up election security

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/01/republicans-block-money-election-security/884438002/?fbclid=IwAR0A2RCohixKav2MPKOrsk7aXGMLxQvNgqigVlOSimoQyGdrzVP4Nkkdass


and from this week:

Despite Mueller's warning, McConnell blocks bipartisan election security bills

https://www.salon.com/2019/05/30/despite-muellers-warning-mcconnell-blocks-bipartisan-election-security-bills/

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Not a fan of Mitch lately.  He said he'd fill a supreme court vacancy in 2020. That was stupid,if you're gonna cite the Biden rule you should also adhere to it.

And then there is the voting security thing. That attitude makes it harder to enact reforms that require both sides of the aisle working together ( voter ID, uniform voting machines, etc)

Stuff like this just makes Washington even more dysfunctional. And in no way am I saying the Democrats are not playing their own part in this dysfunction.

[jarmo]

 

AHEM...

Exactly.

That was posted AFTER your insult.

So I guess in your defense your insults were aimed at the trolling you knew were gonna occur later? I see...


Anyway, arguing with me about it isn't the best solution here.... I asked you to play nice. I won't ask many times.






/jarmo

[tim_m]

Not a fan of Mitch lately.  He said he'd fill a supreme court vacancy in 2020. That was stupid,if you're gonna cite the Biden rule you should also adhere to it.

And then there is the voting security thing. That attitude makes it harder to enact reforms that require both sides of the aisle working together ( voter ID, uniform voting machines, etc)

Stuff like this just makes Washington even more dysfunctional. And in no way am I saying the Democrats are not playing their own part in this dysfunction.

Much is a horrible human being, a total hypocrite.

[jarmo]

Sounds like quite the career politician.

Then again, the Republicans have set the bar quite low for what's acceptable behavior these days.


Seems like things that outraged them back in the Clinton days for example, now is business as usual.....

All credit to those who dare to go against the party line and speak out.




/jarmo

[tim_m]

Impeachment would give Trump the ultimate victim card. And without the senate to convict, it means nothing. I don't give a flying fuck about the symbolic victory of impeachment. And not impeaching is not ignoring. There are many other ways to impeach (in the informal sense) his credibility, which they are doing right now anyway; digging for his tax returns, looking into his foreign business dealings, etc.

For once, I am with Pelosi.

The problem is, to get the information they need to get out to the public, eventually they are going to shit or get off the pot.  Because the courts will give them leeway on some stuff, but eventually, to compel people to testify, they are going to need to launch some sort of umbrella action to convince the courts to enforce congressional subpoenas with arrest warrants.  Traditionally, there are some civil penalties they can impose...but even those have had mixed enforcement in the courts (again, they have to prove that the testimony has some sort of negative congressional impact).

I am not FOR impeachment, for exactly the reasons you lay out.

I am not AGAINST impeachment, for exactly the reasons I've laid out.

I think you slow roll the entire thing to give him as little political aid as you can. But I think ABANDONING the roll is a dereliction of their Constitutional duty.

Hell, if it were possible, I'd hold over the THREAT of impeachment right up until right after the 2020 election....without using it as a campaign promise or platform.  Then, the week after, reelected or not, you draft and sign the articles of impeachment. And if you're Pelosi, in the meantime, you tell people: We are continuing our investigations, but our focus is on making life better for the American People.  The committees that need to provide oversight will continue to do so, while the rest of us work on kitchen table issues.  If and when those committees have suggestions for next step, and information to present to the entire House, we will give it due consideration and act as our Congressional duties demand.

BUT, during the next 18 months, you also have to, as Pelosi said, walk and chew gum at the same time.  They need to do a better job of getting the legislation they are passing, on a regular basis, to the fore front of the news cycle, and demonstrate that they are trying to do their jobs...while the Senate obstructs the agenda that the people voted for in November 2018.

The Equality Act that just passed a couple weeks ago is a great example.  Every Dem house rep interviewed that's asked about impeachment should slip in a mention of this act passing the House.  Letting the conversation be 100% about impeachment, all the time, every time, almost forces them to campaign on that issue into 2020.  They should certainly talk about it, since it's in the public's conversation right now.  But they need to make sure they are championing, and talking about, the things they are sending to the Senate that the Senate is just flat out ignoring.

The House has ALREADY passed close to a dozen pieces of legislation that speak directly to their 2018 agenda.  And they get next to no press.  We've seen it evidenced here by some of the conservative posters who insist they've done NOTHING but investigate the President since January...and that's simply not true.

The Dems need to do the exact thing they have proven so terrible at over the past decade: Take control the political discourse and messaging.  They are incredibly bad at this.  They let the Repubs control the topics.  They are too reactionary and not proactive enough.  They need to mix the conversation so that it's both kitchen table AND oversight.  If they somehow manage to do that, they'll be in good shape.  But they have to stop ONLY chasing the shiny objects that are this presidents hallmark.  All the bad behavior is dominating the conversation.  Which isn't to say it shouldn't be PART of the conversation.  But the Dems need to continue to push their IDEAS, too.  And, with some exceptions, they are letting those ideas get lost in the noise of the presidents near DAILY fuck ups.

The fuck ups are like train wrecks, so I get it's somewhat hard to get your signal over the noise, but they have to find a way.

You described my Mom perfectly with this. She thinks the Democrats have done nothing but support indantcide, illegals voting etc.

[PermissionToLand]

 

AHEM...

The all caps and calling me stupid in your post makes it look like you are mad.

And the troll meme makes you look like a troll.

I wouldn't need to use bold lettering if you wouldn't dodge the main points people make...

[PermissionToLand]

Impeachment would give Trump the ultimate victim card. And without the senate to convict, it means nothing. I don't give a flying fuck about the symbolic victory of impeachment. And not impeaching is not ignoring. There are many other ways to impeach (in the informal sense) his credibility, which they are doing right now anyway; digging for his tax returns, looking into his foreign business dealings, etc.

For once, I am with Pelosi.

The problem is, to get the information they need to get out to the public, eventually they are going to shit or get off the pot.  Because the courts will give them leeway on some stuff, but eventually, to compel people to testify, they are going to need to launch some sort of umbrella action to convince the courts to enforce congressional subpoenas with arrest warrants.  Traditionally, there are some civil penalties they can impose...but even those have had mixed enforcement in the courts (again, they have to prove that the testimony has some sort of negative congressional impact).

I am not FOR impeachment, for exactly the reasons you lay out.

I am not AGAINST impeachment, for exactly the reasons I've laid out.

I think you slow roll the entire thing to give him as little political aid as you can. But I think ABANDONING the roll is a dereliction of their Constitutional duty.

Hell, if it were possible, I'd hold over the THREAT of impeachment right up until right after the 2020 election....without using it as a campaign promise or platform.  Then, the week after, reelected or not, you draft and sign the articles of impeachment. And if you're Pelosi, in the meantime, you tell people: We are continuing our investigations, but our focus is on making life better for the American People.  The committees that need to provide oversight will continue to do so, while the rest of us work on kitchen table issues.  If and when those committees have suggestions for next step, and information to present to the entire House, we will give it due consideration and act as our Congressional duties demand.

BUT, during the next 18 months, you also have to, as Pelosi said, walk and chew gum at the same time.  They need to do a better job of getting the legislation they are passing, on a regular basis, to the fore front of the news cycle, and demonstrate that they are trying to do their jobs...while the Senate obstructs the agenda that the people voted for in November 2018.

The Equality Act that just passed a couple weeks ago is a great example.  Every Dem house rep interviewed that's asked about impeachment should slip in a mention of this act passing the House.  Letting the conversation be 100% about impeachment, all the time, every time, almost forces them to campaign on that issue into 2020.  They should certainly talk about it, since it's in the public's conversation right now.  But they need to make sure they are championing, and talking about, the things they are sending to the Senate that the Senate is just flat out ignoring.

The House has ALREADY passed close to a dozen pieces of legislation that speak directly to their 2018 agenda.  And they get next to no press.  We've seen it evidenced here by some of the conservative posters who insist they've done NOTHING but investigate the President since January...and that's simply not true.

The Dems need to do the exact thing they have proven so terrible at over the past decade: Take control the political discourse and messaging.  They are incredibly bad at this.  They let the Repubs control the topics.  They are too reactionary and not proactive enough.  They need to mix the conversation so that it's both kitchen table AND oversight.  If they somehow manage to do that, they'll be in good shape.  But they have to stop ONLY chasing the shiny objects that are this presidents hallmark.  All the bad behavior is dominating the conversation.  Which isn't to say it shouldn't be PART of the conversation.  But the Dems need to continue to push their IDEAS, too.  And, with some exceptions, they are letting those ideas get lost in the noise of the presidents near DAILY fuck ups.

The fuck ups are like train wrecks, so I get it's somewhat hard to get your signal over the noise, but they have to find a way.

As usual, you make compelling points! Say what you will about the freshman Dems in the house, but they know how to work messaging. It's also great to see at least Warren coming out with frequent specific policy stances. For that alone, I am being drawn to her. It also makes me fear the failure that a candidate with no message at all, like Biden or Klobuchar, could entail...